And why does the MPAA want control. To make more money. Yes, I know it's a little circular, but in the end, everything the MPAA is doing is for more profit on their end.
[Spam] Have I got a deal for you. For only $19.99 (Plus $42.36 S&H) you could be the owner of a hand-made, titanium-polymer, mechanical pencil. No more broken pencils moments before cracking a code. This pencil has a full, money-back guarantee (Minus shipping and handling both ways). And if you order in the next 349 seconds (324 if you read slow), I'll toss in a free piece of 0.7mm lead. [/Spam]
Sorry, I know it's slighly OT but I couldn't resist this one.
Well, yes and no. You are arguing that by buying the DVDs, they are still profiting from the purchase of the discs and they don't need to profit from the player. I agree with that completely. But what I'm saying is that the MPAA is greedy and wants to profit from both and they will do anything to defend their hold on the DVD market. As long as they can make money off of both, they will do anything they can to do that.
If unencoding encrypted information was illegal, then why would anyone ever encrypt it? It would be illegal to ever decrypt it again.
What the DMCA refers to is the unauthorized decryption of protected materials. Everyone who builds an MPAA authorized DVD player pays the MPAA a fee to allow them to use the MPAA's version of DeCSS. This is one of the biggest reasons the MPAA hates DeCSS so much. Everyone that used it rather than an MPAA approved player costs the MPAA money (liscensing fees).
."code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables would be fair use."
Can everyone say DeCSS? How is this any different? DeCSS crasks the protection device (CSS) on a DVD. I hate to say it, but the more the DMCA is upheld in court, the worse off the DeCSS case will be.
Isn't this when Microsoft started having problems? When the started putting a new "OS" (Windows) on top of DOS? Guess I should wait and see how this turns out before commenting on it though:)
Hey, sorry people. Guess my sarcasm went over some heads. The UKOL comment was supposed to refer to whatever big internet service that you wanted to think about for the UK. It had nothing to do with AOL, BMW or any other specific company.
You think this emotion engine is complex, you should try to figure out the one in my girlfriend. Sometimes, I wish God would just Open Source women so that maybe I'd be able to understand them.
It's not really the slander and libel laws that are in question here. The problem is who is responsible. Should ISPs be held liable for things that are posted through them?
So, would all of you people reading this from England please flame this post and also leave me your ISP so that I can sue them? I'll split any profits:)
> In a newsmagazine survey taken earlier this year, 81 percent of Americans said they believed the Net was responsible for the Columbine massacre.
Yeah, it was that and Duke Nukem. Personally, this is getting to be a big pet peeve of mine. "The internet made me kill 27 people." "The internet made me want to rob a bank." "The internet made me go out and fuck my neighbors cat."
I'm sorry. I believe that the internet can have a small effect on people but really... I spend over 60 hours a week online and I haven't killed anyone yet. If they went out and killed people because of the internet, it was because they were already mentally instable. If the internet wasn't enough to push them over the edge, it was just as likely that the next commercial they saw for a Leonardo DiCaprio movie could have.
It's kind of like the "guns don't kill people" thing. The internet doesn't kill people, people do. In this case, it was a bunch of sick, wacked out punks with some serious problems.
Please, if the internet was responsible, I'd like to know how. I want to know what type of scripting it takes to make a web site pull the trigger of a gun.
Don't get me wrong on this. I feel terrible for all of the people at Columbine. I just think that blaming the internet is a stupid attempt at rationalizing things and trying to make things better. Humans just can't admit that we have flaws so we have to blame something else.
Slashdot Mirror
kwsNI
And why does the MPAA want control. To make more money. Yes, I know it's a little circular, but in the end, everything the MPAA is doing is for more profit on their end.
kwsNI
Have I got a deal for you. For only $19.99 (Plus $42.36 S&H) you could be the owner of a hand-made, titanium-polymer, mechanical pencil. No more broken pencils moments before cracking a code. This pencil has a full, money-back guarantee (Minus shipping and handling both ways). And if you order in the next 349 seconds (324 if you read slow), I'll toss in a free piece of 0.7mm lead.
[/Spam]
Sorry, I know it's slighly OT but I couldn't resist this one.
kwsNI
Well, yes and no. You are arguing that by buying the DVDs, they are still profiting from the purchase of the discs and they don't need to profit from the player. I agree with that completely. But what I'm saying is that the MPAA is greedy and wants to profit from both and they will do anything to defend their hold on the DVD market. As long as they can make money off of both, they will do anything they can to do that.
kwsNI
What the DMCA refers to is the unauthorized decryption of protected materials. Everyone who builds an MPAA authorized DVD player pays the MPAA a fee to allow them to use the MPAA's version of DeCSS. This is one of the biggest reasons the MPAA hates DeCSS so much. Everyone that used it rather than an MPAA approved player costs the MPAA money (liscensing fees).
kwsNI
Can everyone say DeCSS? How is this any different? DeCSS crasks the protection device (CSS) on a DVD. I hate to say it, but the more the DMCA is upheld in court, the worse off the DeCSS case will be.
kwsNI
It's evil and it fits nicely into most overhead compartments...
kwsNI
Bet everyone is sorry they're using an "offsite archived" copy of Windows and Office now.
kwsNI
Isn't this when Microsoft started having problems? When the started putting a new "OS" (Windows) on top of DOS? Guess I should wait and see how this turns out before commenting on it though :)
kwsNI
Hey, sorry people. Guess my sarcasm went over some heads. The UKOL comment was supposed to refer to whatever big internet service that you wanted to think about for the UK. It had nothing to do with AOL, BMW or any other specific company.
kwsNI
Don't you read Slashdot? A few days ago, Slashdot ran an article (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/30/23024 3&mode=nested) on an MPAA authorized, Linux DVD player. The company releasing the software is called InterVideo and the player will be names LinDVD.
kwsNI
400 Mbps / 6,000,000,000 internet users. Sounds like the UUNET backbone :)
kwsNI
Does anyone think it's ironic that we're better at detecting new sub-atomic particles than new planets?
kwsNI
Oops, sorry. My mouse was sticking and I double clicked the Submit button.
kwsNI
What type of geek are you? No UPS? If my copy of Linux crashes, it was hardware failure...
kwsNI
Isn't using Windows enough of a tax?
Office is where their money comes from anyway.
Don't forget Asheron's Call.
kwsNI
Isn't using Windows enough of a tax?
Office is where their money comes from anyway.
Don't forget Asheron's Call.
kwsNI
You think this emotion engine is complex, you should try to figure out the one in my girlfriend. Sometimes, I wish God would just Open Source women so that maybe I'd be able to understand them.
kwsNI
Dammit, how can I sue them if they are good and offer Linux support? Now flame me again with a different ISP. Doesn't anyone use UKOL?
kwsNI
It's not really the slander and libel laws that are in question here. The problem is who is responsible. Should ISPs be held liable for things that are posted through them?
kwsNI
So, would all of you people reading this from England please flame this post and also leave me your ISP so that I can sue them? I'll split any profits :)
kwsNI
Shouldn't this guy have gone after the people that were slandering him rather than the ISP that it was posted to? Or did he go after both?
kwsNI
You guys forgot the disclaimer that the USPTO is a registered trademark of Amazon.com.
kwsNI
Couldn't they at least come up with an original name? Celeron 2? Sounds like some sort of bio-engineered vegitable.
kwsNI
Yeah, it was that and Duke Nukem. Personally, this is getting to be a big pet peeve of mine. "The internet made me kill 27 people." "The internet made me want to rob a bank." "The internet made me go out and fuck my neighbors cat."
I'm sorry. I believe that the internet can have a small effect on people but really... I spend over 60 hours a week online and I haven't killed anyone yet. If they went out and killed people because of the internet, it was because they were already mentally instable. If the internet wasn't enough to push them over the edge, it was just as likely that the next commercial they saw for a Leonardo DiCaprio movie could have.
It's kind of like the "guns don't kill people" thing. The internet doesn't kill people, people do. In this case, it was a bunch of sick, wacked out punks with some serious problems.
Please, if the internet was responsible, I'd like to know how. I want to know what type of scripting it takes to make a web site pull the trigger of a gun.
Don't get me wrong on this. I feel terrible for all of the people at Columbine. I just think that blaming the internet is a stupid attempt at rationalizing things and trying to make things better. Humans just can't admit that we have flaws so we have to blame something else.
kwsNI