either Microsoft are accused of stealling other peoples stuff (hard to do with open standards) or they are ignoring open standards.
What do you mean "or"? MS has done both on occasion (or at least tried). SMB, HTML, Java...
As for all the 'nothing new has happened since Xerox' stuff, I suggest the people with that dellusion stop eating the mushrooms and go and use one of the things. OK so you can kinda sorta see the beginings of the ideas we use twenty years later, but they got as much wrong as they got right.
I never said nothing new had happened since Xerox, just that it didn't come out of Microsoft. MS has consistently trailed in the UI race since it entered.
I also never said that UNIX was entirely new, either (although it at least started out with some new ideas).
I don't have an inherent problem with MS taking other's ideas and using them, but I do have a problem with them calling it innovation.
MS didn't invent the optical mouse, they bought it (or stole it, depending on who you ask). Regardless, laser based mice have existed at least as long as Microsoft has.
Regardless, since *nix isn't hardware, I'd say you're reaching here.
Scroll Wheel on Mouse (I think this was theirs)
Again, hardware. I agree that scroll wheels could be a lot easier to set up in *nix, though.
Back and Forwards Net buttons on Mice
I saw mice with 10-key pads on them at Fry's long before MS came out with their 5-button mouse. Mapping the extra buttons to Forward and Back may have been new, though.
The Windows key:-P
Gotta give this one to Apple with the "open apple" and "closed apple" keys.
Autocompletion was hardly a new thing. MS seems to be pretty vague about what else it does.
Dropdown menus that show frequently-used items, adjusting themselves over time?
I admit I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but then I don't have much more than a passing familiarity with most other GUIs.
It seems most folks on slashdot believe Microsoft can simply bully its way to the top of any field, forcing people to adopt anythning it produces.
Perhaps because it often does? OEM contracts come to mind.
Yet products like Bob suggest this isn't true.
Some things just suck so bad that no amount of bullying will help (and yes, I have used Bob).
So, why do some, but by no means all, Microsoft products succeed? Clever copying of proven ideas? Subtle innovation? Reinvention of older ideas, with improvements based on 20/20 hindsight?
I would replace "innovation" with "variation on a theme", and add the strategy of attrition. Just because a company or product failed doesn't mean there weren't some good ideas there. MS has always been good at picking up those ideas and running with them. Successful? Yes, but hardly innovative.
People snipe at the idea of a.Net VM as a Java ripoff. The Java VM is a Pascal P-code VM ripoff, but done better. Java swiped ideas from C++, and improved certain things. Could it be a similar case for C#/.Net?
I never claimed MS was the only one that did that. I just have a problem with them claiming credit for the idea, when anyone who takes a little time to investigate can find that it simply isn't true.
For the record, I find Windows quite usable. MS has taken a lot of good ideas from a lot of sources and put them into something that works, but none of it is new (with the possible exception of menus hiding stuff, but I actually find that irritating).
Mono only is addressing the development and exection environments portion of the pie. Mono has nothing to do with the "web services" you are talking about.
That maybe, and in truth that's what I would expect. However, this thread is not about Mono, but.NET and why it's going to take over the world. Microsofts vision of.NET seems to encompass all of the things you list, and while the server and developement/execution portions of that vision might be loved by developers, they're almost totally invisible to the consumer.
The "privacy" and webservice parts are all that's going to be visible to the consumer will see, and I very much doubt that they will like what they see.
I'm curious, though, what you see MS' vision of webservices is if not pay-per-use remote apps?
Personal computer GUIs are all strikingly similar, whether you're talking about Mac, Windows, KDE, GNOME, fvwm, AmigaDOS... The list goes on and on. When you get right down to it there is really very little variation beyond the cosmetic, and even then the same elements are recognizable across the vast majority of them.
I ask again; what OS was Xerox's GUI built on?
Oh, and Openoffice owes far more to WordPerfect than to MSO. Perhaps it's time to take a step out of your MS-PR-department-provided box and take a look around. When you learn the real history of computing, you'll find that MS is actually one of the least innovative companies that has ever existed.
We need to have microsoft constantly chasing after US
They are. Can you name a single "technology" MS has announced recently that *nix hasn't had for years (if not decades)? What does.NET offer, really? "Portable" code and remote apps? Java has offered portable code for about 7 years now, and remote apps predate Unix.
All MS has done since they started developing NT is chase *nix. The only thing I can think of that they might have had a head start on is the GUI, but I have my doubts about that, too. What OS was Xerox using at PARC, anyway?
The problem for *nix is that the general public isn't aware of that fact.
Developers may love it, but what about consumers? American consumers have proven time and again that they prefer a sense of ownership. They like to have their applications installed on their machine. As much as Microsoft would like all our apps to be pay-per-use webservices, I just don't believe that this is a future that the consumer is going to buy into.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the concept of services, in fact I like it. I'm currently planning a server/thinclient setup for my house. But, once again, it had better be my apps running from my server.
Anyway, maybe I'm totally misreading the intention behind.NET. It seems to me that they're chasing UNIX and trying to get the remote user capability while still clinging to their misguided one-user-per-machine attitude.
I just can't seem to get excited about.NET. I don't think the capabilities it offers are particularly innovative.
It's called "extradition". Perhaps you've heard of it? No Feds required.
I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.
It's the hypocracy that bothers me.
It's Interstate crime? So what. So is mail fraud. Do those people get life in federal prison? If not, how can anyone justify giving a hacker life in federal prison?
It's not as bad because it's nearly impossible to get ME to talk to other machines on the network. I guess they figure you wouldn't put that much effort into sharing stuff with someone you didn't implicitly trust...
That's exactly when the Norwegian government is letting its exclusive contract with MS expire.
If the school admins decide they want to use Linux, great! If they decide they want to use BSD, great! If they decide they want to use Mac or Sun, great! They point is that will no longer have to use MS, and that in itself is the first step in breaking the chains. If any of the other available solutions are deemed better, especially in education, then that is the second step, which will lead directly to the third: people tend to buy the same system as they use at work (or at least something compatible).
I don't need to know how to rebuild an engine to use an automobile, but I do need to know how how to start and stop it, make it accelerate and decelerate, turn, and perhaps shift gears.
I see this a being analagous to what you mean when you say that an engineer only needs to know CAD, an accountant only needs to know accounting software, etc.
In the strictest sense this is true, but we have to remember that we are not talking about a CAD system or an accounting system, we are talking about applications which run on a general computer, interfacing with it through the operating system. That CAD package uses the OS' file system and directory browsing utilities, basic UI widget set, IO subsystems, etc.
Sure, if I know the basics listed above I can drive a car, but that doesn't make me worth jack as a driver if I don't know the traffic laws/traditions in my area, or the general layout of the roads. Our road system and traffic laws are like the OS and directory structure. One needs to be aware of how to interact with the road system, signs and signals, and other drivers to use an automobile.
Similarly, one needs to know how to interact with the directory structure of ones computer in order to be effective with a CAD or accounting package. Shoveling all of that off on the IT department is bullshit. People doing work need to know how to use their tools, and in the modern word that means basic OS interaction like being able to open, save, or even find ones files.
Maybe you have no problem with everyone in your company saving everything they do in their local My Documents folder, but as someone who has worked in both IT and Document Control (at the same time even), I can tell you that creates an impossible mess which eats hours upon hours of what otherwise would be productive time. People need to know more than just how to use their specialized apps, they need to know how to interact with their computer, and that's all the parent was trying to say, and they were quite correct.
The world is not made up of extremes. There is a huge difference between being an IT guru and being computer illiterate. Somewhere between those extremes is being able to interact with ones computer.
I never said the technology wasn't here at the moment. But lets face it, you won't see my grandma popping a DVD in her recording, taping all her favorite shows (and programming it to ignore commercials), and then watching it later, at least not for a while yet. Hence why I said 'mainstream'. And of course I wasn't referring to watching DVDs you purchased at work, I was referring to taped shows burned onto DVD, as an example, and personally I see nothing wrong with being able to watch them at work, at least per what I say below.
Part of my problem with your statements is that you are differentiating between VHS and DVD, and there is no funtional difference. The legal framework is the same, regardless of the technology used. If your gandmother does that with VHS, it is legally and functionally no different from if she were doing the same thing with DVD.
You are not paying for a hard copy or the rights to the show you are watching; you are only paying for the priveledge of viewing it.
According to the Supreme Court, I don't have to pay for those rights. The right to view includes the right to make a hard copy for personal uses, which include time and space shifting (watching it later or taking it over to a freinds house to watch it).
However, I don't have the right to watch it and then show it to someone else who doesn't pay for cable. That is stealing, technically, since two people are watching something that only one paid to see.
No, it is not stealing. Your cable contract is quite similar to a site license in many respects, which is why you can have multiple TVs hooked up without having to pay extra (AT+T especially advertises this as a feature). It doesn't matter how many people are in your house. It is not illegal for you to invite your friend over to watch the show with you, nor is it illegal to record the program, nor is it illegal to show your friend your recorded copy.
Uploading it to the internet is a different story, since that is distribution. Distribution is not a fair use right, but everything else we're talking about is.
This is my own personal view on it. Of course we all tape shows and let other people watch them, and for the most part it is harmless and doesn't really affect the television/movie industry. But that doesn't make it right.
It is right, and it is legal as well. These are the rights granted by Fair Use. Copyright is not a natural right, it is a temporary right granted to the rights holder by society, and fair use is the return society gets for granting that right. Without fair use and the passage of the work into the public domain after a limited time (both of which the content industry are trying to remove with the current atempts to change copyright law), there is no benefit to society for granting copyright, and thus there is no reason to grant it.
It is unfortunate that you are so willing to deny yourself the rights delineated in the Constitution, the law, and the legal precident of our nation.
People don't worry about what Microsoft might do because they hate Microsoft, they hate Microsoft because they have to worry about what Microsoft might do.
I really dont understand why the parent was modded as funny. It is a serious point.
Because it's funny that the parent was moderated as funny, just as it's even more funny that your response to the funny moderation was in turn moderated as funny, and that's pretty funny!
I think it's exactly the inevitable NSA backdoor that's going to kill Palladium. Every country in the world that is concerned about Echelon is going to be demanding non-Palladium hardware from the computer industry, and the industry will have no choice but to comply. Even if it isn't the big boys that provide it, somebody will step up to the plate, and MS will either have to support that hardware or give up those markets.
I think we all know how willing MS is to give up markets, so they will obviously support non-Palladium hardware, thus "legitamizing" the platform. Palladium will be relegated to a niche market of people who really need hardware encryption and have no reason to distrust the NSA.
It is still ridiculous, as Jessica Litman, an expert on copyright law, is able to see. The "quality available with todays technology arguement" is bullshit. It's nothing more than a distraction, which has unfortunately sucked you in. Every "problem" you list is easily acheivable with technology readily available for years now, and yet the content industry has somehow managed to survive.
It is actually (currently) much easier to upload video from a VHS source, and the quality difference between VHS and DVD is not enough for most people to actually care. It's also quite easy to remove commercials, and in fact it's even easier to just fast-forward through them or otherwise ignore them. My rights as a consumer allow me to ignore any part of the content being provided to me, and it doesn't matter how I do it.
Our laws absolutely do not need to change. Unauthorized selling or other distribution of copyrighted works is already illegal. Loaning a taped copy of last nights episode of ER to my mother is not, nor should it ever be, which is exactly what this bill is trying to do. Making 1000 copies and handing them out to random people on the street (or uploading it to the internet and similarly giving it to thousand s of random people) is already covered by current copyright law, and there is no need for further law in that area.
With DVD or like technology, shows can be uploaded online with ease, carried around, played on your work computer, etc.
And what is wrong with that? If I purchased a DVD, I should be able to watch it wherever, whenever, however, and on whatever equipment I choose. I have paid for that right by purchasing the DVD. If it's a broadcast show which I have recorded, I have purchased that right by allowing the broadcaster to use a public resource, the available broadcast spectrum, to do so. That said broadcaster has become dependent upon advertising money to maintain his business is in no way relevant to the basic agreement between the broadcaster and the public. For a cable providor to claim that I don't have those rights is even more absurd since I'm directly paying for the delivery of that content. For a digital satalite providor to make those claims is the height of hypocracy, since they are charging me for delivery over the above mentioned public resource.
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It may be that pretty soon you can't let anyone else listen to a CD you bought.
How can you not know that that is a bad thing? Have you really been so taken in by all the straw men the content industry has been throwing about?
These folks are trying to legislate themselves out of the laws of supply and demand, and that truely is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any experiance with the interface builders listed here?
I'm not doubting your story or anything, but details about these tools a pretty sketchy.
either Microsoft are accused of stealling other peoples stuff (hard to do with open standards) or they are ignoring open standards.
What do you mean "or"? MS has done both on occasion (or at least tried). SMB, HTML, Java...
As for all the 'nothing new has happened since Xerox' stuff, I suggest the people with that dellusion stop eating the mushrooms and go and use one of the things. OK so you can kinda sorta see the beginings of the ideas we use twenty years later, but they got as much wrong as they got right.
I never said nothing new had happened since Xerox, just that it didn't come out of Microsoft. MS has consistently trailed in the UI race since it entered.
I also never said that UNIX was entirely new, either (although it at least started out with some new ideas).
I don't have an inherent problem with MS taking other's ideas and using them, but I do have a problem with them calling it innovation.
DirectX
:-P
Oooh... an API wrapper! that's origional!
Optical Mice
MS didn't invent the optical mouse, they bought it (or stole it, depending on who you ask). Regardless, laser based mice have existed at least as long as Microsoft has.
Regardless, since *nix isn't hardware, I'd say you're reaching here.
Scroll Wheel on Mouse (I think this was theirs)
Again, hardware. I agree that scroll wheels could be a lot easier to set up in *nix, though.
Back and Forwards Net buttons on Mice
I saw mice with 10-key pads on them at Fry's long before MS came out with their 5-button mouse. Mapping the extra buttons to Forward and Back may have been new, though.
The Windows key
Gotta give this one to Apple with the "open apple" and "closed apple" keys.
The site you linked is, judging by the snide comments abut Windows' "features", a tad biased.
.Net VM as a Java ripoff. The Java VM is a Pascal P-code VM ripoff, but done better. Java swiped ideas from C++, and improved certain things. Could it be a similar case for C#/.Net?
That couldn't possibly be because MS has been consistently behind their competition in GUI design. Did you actually look at the screen shots?
What were the predecessors to the Visual Studio IDE?... To drag-n-drop GUI building?
One of these might fit the bill.
To IntelliSense?
Autocompletion was hardly a new thing. MS seems to be pretty vague about what else it does.
Dropdown menus that show frequently-used items, adjusting themselves over time?
I admit I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but then I don't have much more than a passing familiarity with most other GUIs.
It seems most folks on slashdot believe Microsoft can simply bully its way to the top of any field, forcing people to adopt anythning it produces.
Perhaps because it often does? OEM contracts come to mind.
Yet products like Bob suggest this isn't true.
Some things just suck so bad that no amount of bullying will help (and yes, I have used Bob).
So, why do some, but by no means all, Microsoft products succeed? Clever copying of proven ideas? Subtle innovation? Reinvention of older ideas, with improvements based on 20/20 hindsight?
I would replace "innovation" with "variation on a theme", and add the strategy of attrition. Just because a company or product failed doesn't mean there weren't some good ideas there. MS has always been good at picking up those ideas and running with them. Successful? Yes, but hardly innovative.
People snipe at the idea of a
I never claimed MS was the only one that did that. I just have a problem with them claiming credit for the idea, when anyone who takes a little time to investigate can find that it simply isn't true.
For the record, I find Windows quite usable. MS has taken a lot of good ideas from a lot of sources and put them into something that works, but none of it is new (with the possible exception of menus hiding stuff, but I actually find that irritating).
MS Office pretty much mimicks the old WordPerfect GUI, and OpenOffice follows WordPerfect much more closely than it follows MSO.
I'll say it again, and a bit more bluntly this time: Microsoft has not produced a single innovation with regards to GUI design, even in terms of look-and-feel.
Mono only is addressing the development and exection environments portion of the pie. Mono has nothing to do with the "web services" you are talking about.
.NET and why it's going to take over the world. Microsofts vision of .NET seems to encompass all of the things you list, and while the server and developement/execution portions of that vision might be loved by developers, they're almost totally invisible to the consumer.
That maybe, and in truth that's what I would expect. However, this thread is not about Mono, but
The "privacy" and webservice parts are all that's going to be visible to the consumer will see, and I very much doubt that they will like what they see.
I'm curious, though, what you see MS' vision of webservices is if not pay-per-use remote apps?
He also sells stock in his future albums to finance their production. How cool is that?
Personal computer GUIs are all strikingly similar, whether you're talking about Mac, Windows, KDE, GNOME, fvwm, AmigaDOS... The list goes on and on. When you get right down to it there is really very little variation beyond the cosmetic, and even then the same elements are recognizable across the vast majority of them.
I ask again; what OS was Xerox's GUI built on?
Oh, and Openoffice owes far more to WordPerfect than to MSO. Perhaps it's time to take a step out of your MS-PR-department-provided box and take a look around. When you learn the real history of computing, you'll find that MS is actually one of the least innovative companies that has ever existed.
We need to have microsoft constantly chasing after US
.NET offer, really? "Portable" code and remote apps? Java has offered portable code for about 7 years now, and remote apps predate Unix.
They are. Can you name a single "technology" MS has announced recently that *nix hasn't had for years (if not decades)? What does
All MS has done since they started developing NT is chase *nix. The only thing I can think of that they might have had a head start on is the GUI, but I have my doubts about that, too. What OS was Xerox using at PARC, anyway?
The problem for *nix is that the general public isn't aware of that fact.
Developers may love it, but what about consumers? American consumers have proven time and again that they prefer a sense of ownership. They like to have their applications installed on their machine. As much as Microsoft would like all our apps to be pay-per-use webservices, I just don't believe that this is a future that the consumer is going to buy into.
.NET. It seems to me that they're chasing UNIX and trying to get the remote user capability while still clinging to their misguided one-user-per-machine attitude.
.NET. I don't think the capabilities it offers are particularly innovative.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the concept of services, in fact I like it. I'm currently planning a server/thinclient setup for my house. But, once again, it had better be my apps running from my server.
Anyway, maybe I'm totally misreading the intention behind
I just can't seem to get excited about
So, can you explain why this requires an adition to existing law?
It's called "extradition". Perhaps you've heard of it? No Feds required.
I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.
It's the hypocracy that bothers me.
It's Interstate crime? So what. So is mail fraud. Do those people get life in federal prison? If not, how can anyone justify giving a hacker life in federal prison?
It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions. I pray that you will bring sanity and compasion back to the senate.
You'd think the folks at Dominican would be smart enough to catch something like that... or maybe medireview is a real word?
It's not as bad because it's nearly impossible to get ME to talk to other machines on the network. I guess they figure you wouldn't put that much effort into sharing stuff with someone you didn't implicitly trust...
That's exactly when the Norwegian government is letting its exclusive contract with MS expire.
If the school admins decide they want to use Linux, great! If they decide they want to use BSD, great! If they decide they want to use Mac or Sun, great! They point is that will no longer have to use MS, and that in itself is the first step in breaking the chains. If any of the other available solutions are deemed better, especially in education, then that is the second step, which will lead directly to the third: people tend to buy the same system as they use at work (or at least something compatible).
Having a lot of money and a high level of education in no way prevents one from being a total idiot.
Just look at George Dubya: he has money and education, and yet he is most definately a total idiot.
PARC
It's an abbreviation for Palo Alto Research Center, and thus should be in all caps.
I don't need to know how to rebuild an engine to use an automobile, but I do need to know how how to start and stop it, make it accelerate and decelerate, turn, and perhaps shift gears.
I see this a being analagous to what you mean when you say that an engineer only needs to know CAD, an accountant only needs to know accounting software, etc.
In the strictest sense this is true, but we have to remember that we are not talking about a CAD system or an accounting system, we are talking about applications which run on a general computer, interfacing with it through the operating system. That CAD package uses the OS' file system and directory browsing utilities, basic UI widget set, IO subsystems, etc.
Sure, if I know the basics listed above I can drive a car, but that doesn't make me worth jack as a driver if I don't know the traffic laws/traditions in my area, or the general layout of the roads. Our road system and traffic laws are like the OS and directory structure. One needs to be aware of how to interact with the road system, signs and signals, and other drivers to use an automobile.
Similarly, one needs to know how to interact with the directory structure of ones computer in order to be effective with a CAD or accounting package. Shoveling all of that off on the IT department is bullshit. People doing work need to know how to use their tools, and in the modern word that means basic OS interaction like being able to open, save, or even find ones files.
Maybe you have no problem with everyone in your company saving everything they do in their local My Documents folder, but as someone who has worked in both IT and Document Control (at the same time even), I can tell you that creates an impossible mess which eats hours upon hours of what otherwise would be productive time. People need to know more than just how to use their specialized apps, they need to know how to interact with their computer, and that's all the parent was trying to say, and they were quite correct.
The world is not made up of extremes. There is a huge difference between being an IT guru and being computer illiterate. Somewhere between those extremes is being able to interact with ones computer.
I never said the technology wasn't here at the moment. But lets face it, you won't see my grandma popping a DVD in her recording, taping all her favorite shows (and programming it to ignore commercials), and then watching it later, at least not for a while yet. Hence why I said 'mainstream'. And of course I wasn't referring to watching DVDs you purchased at work, I was referring to taped shows burned onto DVD, as an example, and personally I see nothing wrong with being able to watch them at work, at least per what I say below.
Part of my problem with your statements is that you are differentiating between VHS and DVD, and there is no funtional difference. The legal framework is the same, regardless of the technology used. If your gandmother does that with VHS, it is legally and functionally no different from if she were doing the same thing with DVD.
You are not paying for a hard copy or the rights to the show you are watching; you are only paying for the priveledge of viewing it.
According to the Supreme Court, I don't have to pay for those rights. The right to view includes the right to make a hard copy for personal uses, which include time and space shifting (watching it later or taking it over to a freinds house to watch it).
However, I don't have the right to watch it and then show it to someone else who doesn't pay for cable. That is stealing, technically, since two people are watching something that only one paid to see.
No, it is not stealing. Your cable contract is quite similar to a site license in many respects, which is why you can have multiple TVs hooked up without having to pay extra (AT+T especially advertises this as a feature). It doesn't matter how many people are in your house. It is not illegal for you to invite your friend over to watch the show with you, nor is it illegal to record the program, nor is it illegal to show your friend your recorded copy.
Uploading it to the internet is a different story, since that is distribution. Distribution is not a fair use right, but everything else we're talking about is.
This is my own personal view on it. Of course we all tape shows and let other people watch them, and for the most part it is harmless and doesn't really affect the television/movie industry. But that doesn't make it right.
It is right, and it is legal as well. These are the rights granted by Fair Use. Copyright is not a natural right, it is a temporary right granted to the rights holder by society, and fair use is the return society gets for granting that right. Without fair use and the passage of the work into the public domain after a limited time (both of which the content industry are trying to remove with the current atempts to change copyright law), there is no benefit to society for granting copyright, and thus there is no reason to grant it.
It is unfortunate that you are so willing to deny yourself the rights delineated in the Constitution, the law, and the legal precident of our nation.
People don't worry about what Microsoft might do because they hate Microsoft, they hate Microsoft because they have to worry about what Microsoft might do.
I really dont understand why the parent was modded as funny. It is a serious point.
Because it's funny that the parent was moderated as funny, just as it's even more funny that your response to the funny moderation was in turn moderated as funny, and that's pretty funny!
I think it's exactly the inevitable NSA backdoor that's going to kill Palladium. Every country in the world that is concerned about Echelon is going to be demanding non-Palladium hardware from the computer industry, and the industry will have no choice but to comply. Even if it isn't the big boys that provide it, somebody will step up to the plate, and MS will either have to support that hardware or give up those markets.
I think we all know how willing MS is to give up markets, so they will obviously support non-Palladium hardware, thus "legitamizing" the platform. Palladium will be relegated to a niche market of people who really need hardware encryption and have no reason to distrust the NSA.
Does this sound like a state fair ride you'd want to take?
HELL YES!!!!
The wife probably wouldn't approve, but I'm not sure that would be enough to stop me...
It is still ridiculous, as Jessica Litman, an expert on copyright law, is able to see. The "quality available with todays technology arguement" is bullshit. It's nothing more than a distraction, which has unfortunately sucked you in. Every "problem" you list is easily acheivable with technology readily available for years now, and yet the content industry has somehow managed to survive.
It is actually (currently) much easier to upload video from a VHS source, and the quality difference between VHS and DVD is not enough for most people to actually care. It's also quite easy to remove commercials, and in fact it's even easier to just fast-forward through them or otherwise ignore them. My rights as a consumer allow me to ignore any part of the content being provided to me, and it doesn't matter how I do it.
Our laws absolutely do not need to change. Unauthorized selling or other distribution of copyrighted works is already illegal. Loaning a taped copy of last nights episode of ER to my mother is not, nor should it ever be, which is exactly what this bill is trying to do. Making 1000 copies and handing them out to random people on the street (or uploading it to the internet and similarly giving it to thousand s of random people) is already covered by current copyright law, and there is no need for further law in that area.
With DVD or like technology, shows can be uploaded online with ease, carried around, played on your work computer, etc.
And what is wrong with that? If I purchased a DVD, I should be able to watch it wherever, whenever, however, and on whatever equipment I choose. I have paid for that right by purchasing the DVD. If it's a broadcast show which I have recorded, I have purchased that right by allowing the broadcaster to use a public resource, the available broadcast spectrum, to do so. That said broadcaster has become dependent upon advertising money to maintain his business is in no way relevant to the basic agreement between the broadcaster and the public. For a cable providor to claim that I don't have those rights is even more absurd since I'm directly paying for the delivery of that content. For a digital satalite providor to make those claims is the height of hypocracy, since they are charging me for delivery over the above mentioned public resource.
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It may be that pretty soon you can't let anyone else listen to a CD you bought.
How can you not know that that is a bad thing? Have you really been so taken in by all the straw men the content industry has been throwing about?
These folks are trying to legislate themselves out of the laws of supply and demand, and that truely is ridiculous.