Those of us who oppose RMS don't disagree with his premise--only the conclusion that he draws from it. He was led to conclude that IP rights are unimportant, and to not care about entrepreneurs. Just as RMS doesn't care about the fate of the entreprenurial spirit
I'm not quite sure where you draw that he's specifically 'anti-entrepreneurial.' I admit that I'm not that familiar with all his views, but GPL itself does not seem to preclude innovation or entrepreneurship unless you believe that most true innovation must come from proprietary licensed software. I personally believe that finding and meeting needs is sufficient to advance the state of technology. How to go about this is up to the developer. With proprietary, you sell licenses. With open source, you sell contracted development labor, consulting and support services, etc.
It's RMS who preaches that proprietary software is immoral..... The GPL is not strictly about making software an unprofitable business. It's about socializing software development.
That's probably a bit of a stretch, but in a way you can see his reasoning: greed is immoral, most proprietary software promotes greed, therefore most proprietary software is immoral. Or in another sense, you could argue that proprietary is immoral because it reserves too much control over the user. But I'd rather not go into that. My own opinion is that an anti-proprietary standpoint makes sense in a natural sort of way. As a software developer, the control I relinquish by GPL'ing my code comes back to me many times over in the form of community feedback and contributions--which I can then pass on to my clients without doing much, if any, additional work myself. GPL is my social contract that I care more about advancing software than grubbing for money and control. And I expect anyone else who uses my code to abide by the same contract, such that our efforts are mutually beneficial. Sure, I need to eat and live comfortably, but to me, the freedom and excitement of sharing with others is much more rewarding than the additional wealth I may accrue by doing proprietary development. I suppose you could call that socializing, but only in the sense of creating community. I would argue that the GPL philosophy is still fully capitalist. There's no organization or government body telling me what to do, how to work, or how to live. My clients needs and my own hobby interests are the only things which helps dictate in which direction development progresses.
The GPL-lovers with their twisted notion of freedom can whine all they want about this not being fair competition, but it is. I had been looking for ways to defeat the GPL without making it illegal (there is nothing that says you have to use MS file sharing systems, you can still use your own GPL'd file sharing system). This is the best idea I've seen yet. Now, it would be cool if some other people would release legal virii on the Open Source world--it could break the near monopoly that GPL has on OSS licenses.
No, trying to 'defeat the GPL' would create a hideous mess that would severely hinder the OSS movement. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. People who write software and release it under GPL do so because they want their code to remain free under all circumstances--and it is their right to insist upon that. The argument that (misguided) BSD/anti-GPL fanatics make is that GPL is "less free" because you're not allowed to take my code, modify it, and sell it as proprietary software. The illogical conclusion then follows that GPL is about making it impossible to make money writing software. WRONG! GPL is about making it impossible to make money *selling* proprietary licenses for copies of the software. There's nothing preventing anyone from selling their labor as the cost of writing GPL'ed code ie.) making money by contracted development. Eliminating all proprietary software (whether 5 years or 50 years from now) is a very worthy goal. It's as simple as that.
If someone takes the code from MS and puts it into the GPL, MS no longer has any control over it, and they want a little control over what they invented. It seems reasonable.
Exactly. That's the whole point--Microsoft should have no control of it. Standards controlled by one company are always bad. What they invented?! Sorry, but you don't "invent" software, you write it create solutions to needs. Invent would imply that you're doing something that nobody has ever considered before--making some proprietary modifications to an existing network filesystem is hardly inventing.
I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.
If we could pay a quarter per track and download unencrypted, high-bitrate (or lossless) compressed audio, we wouldn't need "the bigs" now would we? I would gladly pay that much per track as long as the money ALL went to the artist(s)--the only ones who deserve it.
To my point, Microsoft spends more on innovation than you can fathom. Nothing compared to OSS. Why? What kinda jackass CEO is going to put money into research just to have jackass2 CEO take the code and use it in their distro? Microsoft has a business model that supports research and development because what they research is theirs to make money from.
Bullcrap FUD. There's no need for either proprietary software companies or software patents to drive innovation in software. If M$ is so amazingly innovative, then: why is their software so lacking in security?, why is their server software slower than free alternatives?, why does their GUI usability / aesthetics lag behind KDE?
If Microsoft doesn't make money of their research, they aren't going to research anymore.
Fine with me. In fact, IMO it's not going to be long before M$ isn't making ANY money off ANYthing anymore.. well, maybe providing legacy support for software that's no longer marketed.. Proprietary is dead. Get over it.
My DIY experience has greatly *increased* with all the new trends and technologies (and cheaper old ones). I mean.. 10 years ago, could you buy a perfectly good 100Mhz. storage oscilloscope in an online auction for $100? Or instantly access spec sheets on just about any IC ever produced? Or discuss circuit design technique on public mailing lists with electrical engineers around the world?
DIY isn't going away.. it's getting more advanced and more exciting! (and yes, SMD soldering is very muchpractical for the home hobbyist with about $50 of the right tools)
So, basically this license can be used by Microsoft to protect even things that are not able to get a patent for.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Not really. I don't believe there are no legal grounds, historical or otherwise, for licensing text materials with provisions on what you can or cannot do with the knowledge within. If I buy a copy of a M$ technical reference from my local bookstore, M$ has no right to prevent me from doing anything other than directly copying it. I can write my own technical reference based on my interpretation, release it with nothing more than a standard copyright, and they can't do a damn thing about it. (Preventing me from doing so would be a clear-cut first-amendment violation). The same applies to software itself assuming that code is considered free speech. Software would be an interpretation of the technical reference as well. If software is (illogically) not deemed free speech, then there may still be need for an in-between third-party documentation before developers can use it to develop software.
Either way, this is only about software patents. Without them, M$ is powerless to enforce any such license.
From the text of the license: 3.2 Patent License. Subject to Sections 3.3 - 3.7, Microsoft
hereby grants Company a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, personal,
transferable, non-sublicensable, license under its Necessary Claims to (1)
make, use, import, and (2) offer to sell, sell and distribute, directly or
indirectly, to End Users, Company Implementations that fully comply with the
Technical Reference. The above license is limited to implementing the CIFS
communication protocol itself, and does not include any express or implied
licenses or other rights to any underlying technology (operating system
technology, local file system technology, etc.) that may be used to make a
complete file server or other CIFS compatible device.
Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns, controls or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distributing such implementations.
If I understand this correctly, Microsoft is claiming patent rights (5,265,261
and 5,437,013) on technology related to implementing CIFS. Basically they're saying "everybody can use our patents royalty-free as long as it's not part of (L)GPL'ed software." Essentially this is a patent license, not a software or documentation license. The "technical reference" is just along for the ride--also free under the same terms. I predicted this about 2 years ago--that Microsoft would turn to software patents after realizing that GPL software was undefeatable by any other means. This is their first attempt.
It seems there are 3 options: 1.) Develop CIFS software outside the US, ignore the patent for use within the US. 2.) Develop a CIFS module for Samba under the BSD license (license compatibility?) 3.) Develop CIFS software at will and ignore M$ altogether.
All three cases probably require some degree of civil disobedience for US citizens--in the form of not honoring software patents. I say go for it. This could become the first time M$ ever legally fought individuals, and believe me--it could raise such a stink in public opinion that it destroys them completely.
April 15th, 2034 Dissociated Press --- New research suggests that the use of CO2 scrubbers in our planet's atmosphere during the past 20 years may indeed have permanently damaged the delicate balance of our environment. Scientists have dubbed this phenomenon "the drafty window effect" and believe it may be the principle cause of Global Cooling. Last week, environmentalists were outraged when the latest satellite data suggested that massive new ice shelves have begun forming in Antarctica. "We need the government to recognize the severity of this situation and take action immediately through an international treaty," one protester commented. Last month, the current Republican administration rejected the Otoyk Treaty, which would have mandated that all CO2 scrubbers be shut down and new fossil-fuel power plants be installed to help increase atmospheric CO2 levels. "There's really no scientific evidence that CO2 scrubbers are having a significant impact on the environment. Harvesting CO2 for landmass creation is a valuable industry that we're not ready to abandon," one official told reporters, "this so called 'global cooling' could all be a natural cycle. We really don't have enough data to say for sure." Some scientists claim that Global Cooling is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a period of reduced solar and seismic activity. "We've known for years that volcanoes are the largest producers of 'drafty window'-insulating gasses," one researcher mentioned. Regardless, it's clear that this debate will continue for some time.
We're going to keep seeing this kinda crap until the record labels are put in their grave once and for all. It's not a matter of them adapting to new consumer demand and letting us buy music online or whatever. No matter which way you cut it, they are still middlemen--sucking economic gain from both the consumer and musician. Albums cost way too much and artists aren't being fairly paid. Technlogy has obsoleted the information middle-man altogether. Perhaps what we need are companies devoted to assisting professional independent artists.
Is this any different? Would this company have still been sued if the local mp3 database had some sort of locking mechanism that only allowed songs to be played on one computer at a time? And regardless, how can they prove that more than one copy was played at a time, be it the original cd or the mp3 version or multiple instances of the mp3 version? Seems to me the RIAA had a weak case legally and the company for some reason figured it was better to just pay the bully and walk away without the bruises. Even with royalties paid for 'public performance' it should have been nowhere close to $1mil.
As long as this isn't a hoax, the word really needs to get out about this.
DVB and CBDTPA (aka. SSSCA)
on
PVR For Linux
·
· Score: 2
Ordinary DVB in Europe isn't encrypted at all is it? If that is so, perhaps our legislators should be made aware of this as an example that broadcast television really doesn't need copy controls. That'd be sweet if we US folk could get raw MPEG-2 streams of all our programming. Let the broadcasters pay by commercial time as par tradition and get rid of this privacy invading subscription crap.
Seems to me there are community wireless networks springing up all over. How long until this whole concept becomes the next "napster" of sorts? Each town would, of course, have to have some sort of coordinating team and lay some groundwork for efficient routing, but it could eventually get really interesting. And think further: IPv6! Now you have non-profit co-ops with huge blocks of IPs.
Then donate to the Debian project through the non-profit organization Software in the Public Interest. Why the heck would you give your money to a corporation? If you donate to SPI, you'll get a tax receipt too. Can't say that about MDK User Club.
See this page: http://www.debian.org/donations
Why choose Debian over Mandrake? - More packages than any other distribution. - Latest software versions available faster (use Debian's 'unstable' tree.. which btw, is pretty darn stable! Nothing like the buggy mess that is MDK cooker.) - Packages are exceedingly well built, highly integrated, and well optimized. - It's cleaner / faster. Debian's default install isn't loaded down with lots of junk you probably won't need anyhow. - Responsive support mailing lists: be polite and you'll get quick answers - Incredibly easy to maintain / update due to superior dependancy handling - All packages are available from a single location with many mirrors. No hunting.
Please note that you should be using Debian testing (Woody) to install as it's very mature and up to date.
And now come the whining newbie flames about how Debian is so impossible to install or other such entirely unfounded nonsense. RTFM and try before you cry folks. (-:
Someone ought to implement this supposed new version of CIFS immediately, in plain defiance of their stupidity. Let M$ go ahead try to sue them--this would be especially effective if the program was written by some teenage kid from a small town. Then make an enormous public fuss about it and watch M$ be annihilated by half its employees leaving and its stock price falling to peanuts.
This is ultimately a pretty silly device, but it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make a big public fuss over it either way--simply on principle. A real danger would be some sort of next generation id-chip that injects nano-tech transmitters that cannot be removed with a scalpel and tweezers. The next step after that would be some sort of mind control functionality by interfacing nano-tranceivers with neurons. Think "a Clockwork Orange" meets the Borg..
NVidia's linux drivers are available only as closed source binaries. That is 100% unacceptable and anyone with a brain will not use their hardware until they change their policies on giving us developers documentation. Of course ATI doesn't exactly have the best record for releasing timely or complete documentation either..
You know why 3D still generally sucks on the PC? Because the market has been ground to a halt by patents and restrictive licensing. Imagine if the Internet developed this way. Stupid greed.
Frankly, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is downright stupid--and no, I'm not trying to make some moral point. It's just not the slightest bit practical. C'mon now, think about it:
- it's expensive - it really doesn't taste very good by itself - it doesn't quench your thirst - it damages your brain and liver - it has a high fat content (10g/std. serving) - it wastes your time if you get tipsy or a hangover - it dulls your wit, judgment, and intelligence - it creates all sorts of societal problems when used irresponsibly - used as an escape, it is highly unhealthy psychologically
..and if you think it'll help you get guys/girls, you've got a bigger problem than lack of a mate. (ie. it should not be a requisite for acting sociable)
Why on earth would any self-respecting geek want to poison themselves with this crap? Stop listening to the big beer companies. Drink water. Live healthfully. Enjoy life.
Thanks for pointing that out. Bad wording on my part. I guess I was trying to differentiate between copyrighted works that do or do not allow redistribution. So if not license, what would you call a statement such as.. "copyright 2002, xyz. Unlimited redistribution permitted."?
There's nothing in our constitution that says your intellectual work must be kept from being freely used by the public at large. If tomorrow, congress decided to overthrow all "intellectual property" law, there would be no constitutional argument against it, though certainly many people would complain. The constitution gives congress the power to set up a system of copyright and patents. It doesn't make it a requirement. That power is intended for the benefit of the public by creating economic incentives to produce works which will eventually (and within a reasonably short time) enlarge the public domain. That power has been massively abused such that it is now a way for a handful of people to get super-rich on works that will only enter public domain many generations after they were originally produced. On the other hand, freedom of speech is a constitutional right--and a moral right as well. If the government errs in the process, it ought to err on the side of freedom of speech.
Theft is me downloading a copy of the song without paying you. Often when I download music from the internet I send checks to the artists for an amount of money I feel their music is worth.
Nope. Downloading a copyrighted song with restrictive licensing is not theft, it's a license violation. Theft is when you remove something from someone's possession in order to posess it yourself. Theft implies a mutually excludable resource. So it would still include your example about claiming you wrote a song when in fact you didn't--because only one person can be credited. If you download a song and then send a direct payment to the author instead, it's still a license violation because most likely the author doesn't actually own the licensing rights to the song.
Note that I'm not making a moral point here.. just clear up your wording.
Frankly, artists need to be reminded that they don't really need producers and distributers anymore--nor even restrictive licensing. I personally would buy a lot more music if I could send the money ONLY to the artist and not to some fat slimy weasel looking to take away our rights to make him/herself richer.
You might be interested in some of the more recent Linux audio applications that have begun maturing lately. The latest version of MuSE is pretty amazing. It's almost a cakewalk replacement, although some of the audio (wave) features are still in the works. Right now it's primarily a MIDI sequencer / notation app. and a quite useful one at that. Be sure to use a low-latency kernel and make the MuSE binary setuid root. Course that goes for any real-time-critical audio application under any *nix. AFAIK, Win NT uses some kinda hack to get around the ordinary kernel schedueling. Win9x essentually runs everything with supervisor privledge, hence its total lack of security and extreme vulnerability to viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
Those of us who oppose RMS don't disagree with his premise--only the conclusion that he draws from it. He was led to conclude that IP rights are unimportant, and to not care about entrepreneurs. Just as RMS doesn't care about the fate of the entreprenurial spirit
.... The GPL is not strictly about making software an unprofitable business. It's about socializing software development.
I'm not quite sure where you draw that he's specifically 'anti-entrepreneurial.' I admit that I'm not that familiar with all his views, but GPL itself does not seem to preclude innovation or entrepreneurship unless you believe that most true innovation must come from proprietary licensed software. I personally believe that finding and meeting needs is sufficient to advance the state of technology. How to go about this is up to the developer. With proprietary, you sell licenses. With open source, you sell contracted development labor, consulting and support services, etc.
It's RMS who preaches that proprietary software is immoral.
That's probably a bit of a stretch, but in a way you can see his reasoning: greed is immoral, most proprietary software promotes greed, therefore most proprietary software is immoral. Or in another sense, you could argue that proprietary is immoral because it reserves too much control over the user. But I'd rather not go into that. My own opinion is that an anti-proprietary standpoint makes sense in a natural sort of way. As a software developer, the control I relinquish by GPL'ing my code comes back to me many times over in the form of community feedback and contributions--which I can then pass on to my clients without doing much, if any, additional work myself. GPL is my social contract that I care more about advancing software than grubbing for money and control. And I expect anyone else who uses my code to abide by the same contract, such that our efforts are mutually beneficial. Sure, I need to eat and live comfortably, but to me, the freedom and excitement of sharing with others is much more rewarding than the additional wealth I may accrue by doing proprietary development. I suppose you could call that socializing, but only in the sense of creating community. I would argue that the GPL philosophy is still fully capitalist. There's no organization or government body telling me what to do, how to work, or how to live. My clients needs and my own hobby interests are the only things which helps dictate in which direction development progresses.
The GPL-lovers with their twisted notion of freedom can whine all they want about this not being fair competition, but it is. I had been looking for ways to defeat the GPL without making it illegal (there is nothing that says you have to use MS file sharing systems, you can still use your own GPL'd file sharing system). This is the best idea I've seen yet. Now, it would be cool if some other people would release legal virii on the Open Source world--it could break the near monopoly that GPL has on OSS licenses.
No, trying to 'defeat the GPL' would create a hideous mess that would severely hinder the OSS movement. I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. People who write software and release it under GPL do so because they want their code to remain free under all circumstances--and it is their right to insist upon that. The argument that (misguided) BSD/anti-GPL fanatics make is that GPL is "less free" because you're not allowed to take my code, modify it, and sell it as proprietary software. The illogical conclusion then follows that GPL is about making it impossible to make money writing software. WRONG! GPL is about making it impossible to make money *selling* proprietary licenses for copies of the software. There's nothing preventing anyone from selling their labor as the cost of writing GPL'ed code ie.) making money by contracted development. Eliminating all proprietary software (whether 5 years or 50 years from now) is a very worthy goal. It's as simple as that.
If someone takes the code from MS and puts it into the GPL, MS no longer has any control over it, and they want a little control over what they invented. It seems reasonable.
Exactly. That's the whole point--Microsoft should have no control of it. Standards controlled by one company are always bad. What they invented?! Sorry, but you don't "invent" software, you write it create solutions to needs. Invent would imply that you're doing something that nobody has ever considered before--making some proprietary modifications to an existing network filesystem is hardly inventing.
I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.
If we could pay a quarter per track and download unencrypted, high-bitrate (or lossless) compressed audio, we wouldn't need "the bigs" now would we? I would gladly pay that much per track as long as the money ALL went to the artist(s)--the only ones who deserve it.
To my point, Microsoft spends more on innovation than you can fathom. Nothing compared to OSS. Why? What kinda jackass CEO is going to put money into research just to have jackass2 CEO take the code and use it in their distro? Microsoft has a business model that supports research and development because what they research is theirs to make money from.
Bullcrap FUD. There's no need for either proprietary software companies or software patents to drive innovation in software. If M$ is so amazingly innovative, then: why is their software so lacking in security?, why is their server software slower than free alternatives?, why does their GUI usability / aesthetics lag behind KDE?
If Microsoft doesn't make money of their research, they aren't going to research anymore.
Fine with me. In fact, IMO it's not going to be long before M$ isn't making ANY money off ANYthing anymore.. well, maybe providing legacy support for software that's no longer marketed.. Proprietary is dead. Get over it.
My DIY experience has greatly *increased* with all the new trends and technologies (and cheaper old ones). I mean.. 10 years ago, could you buy a perfectly good 100Mhz. storage oscilloscope in an online auction for $100? Or instantly access spec sheets on just about any IC ever produced? Or discuss circuit design technique on public mailing lists with electrical engineers around the world?
DIY isn't going away.. it's getting more advanced and more exciting! (and yes, SMD soldering is very muchpractical for the home hobbyist with about $50 of the right tools)
So, basically this license can be used by Microsoft to protect even things that are not able to get a patent for.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Not really. I don't believe there are no legal grounds, historical or otherwise, for licensing text materials with provisions on what you can or cannot do with the knowledge within. If I buy a copy of a M$ technical reference from my local bookstore, M$ has no right to prevent me from doing anything other than directly copying it. I can write my own technical reference based on my interpretation, release it with nothing more than a standard copyright, and they can't do a damn thing about it. (Preventing me from doing so would be a clear-cut first-amendment violation). The same applies to software itself assuming that code is considered free speech. Software would be an interpretation of the technical reference as well. If software is (illogically) not deemed free speech, then there may still be need for an in-between third-party documentation before developers can use it to develop software.
Either way, this is only about software patents. Without them, M$ is powerless to enforce any such license.
From the text of the license:
3.2 Patent License. Subject to Sections 3.3 - 3.7, Microsoft
hereby grants Company a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, personal,
transferable, non-sublicensable, license under its Necessary Claims to (1)
make, use, import, and (2) offer to sell, sell and distribute, directly or
indirectly, to End Users, Company Implementations that fully comply with the
Technical Reference. The above license is limited to implementing the CIFS
communication protocol itself, and does not include any express or implied
licenses or other rights to any underlying technology (operating system
technology, local file system technology, etc.) that may be used to make a
complete file server or other CIFS compatible device.
Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns,
controls or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third
party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to
implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such
implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to
such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the
Technical Reference and distributing such implementations.
If I understand this correctly, Microsoft is claiming patent rights (5,265,261
and 5,437,013) on technology related to implementing CIFS. Basically they're saying "everybody can use our patents royalty-free as long as it's not part of (L)GPL'ed software." Essentially this is a patent license, not a software or documentation license. The "technical reference" is just along for the ride--also free under the same terms. I predicted this about 2 years ago--that Microsoft would turn to software patents after realizing that GPL software was undefeatable by any other means. This is their first attempt.
It seems there are 3 options:
1.) Develop CIFS software outside the US, ignore the patent for use within the US.
2.) Develop a CIFS module for Samba under the BSD license (license compatibility?)
3.) Develop CIFS software at will and ignore M$ altogether.
All three cases probably require some degree of civil disobedience for US citizens--in the form of not honoring software patents. I say go for it. This could become the first time M$ ever legally fought individuals, and believe me--it could raise such a stink in public opinion that it destroys them completely.
April 15th, 2034 Dissociated Press
---
New research suggests that the use of CO2 scrubbers in our planet's atmosphere during the past 20 years may indeed have permanently damaged the delicate balance of our environment. Scientists have dubbed this phenomenon "the drafty window effect" and believe it may be the principle cause of Global Cooling. Last week, environmentalists were outraged when the latest satellite data suggested that massive new ice shelves have begun forming in Antarctica. "We need the government to recognize the severity of this situation and take action immediately through an international treaty," one protester commented. Last month, the current Republican administration rejected the Otoyk Treaty, which would have mandated that all CO2 scrubbers be shut down and new fossil-fuel power plants be installed to help increase atmospheric CO2 levels. "There's really no scientific evidence that CO2 scrubbers are having a significant impact on the environment. Harvesting CO2 for landmass creation is a valuable industry that we're not ready to abandon," one official told reporters, "this so called 'global cooling' could all be a natural cycle. We really don't have enough data to say for sure." Some scientists claim that Global Cooling is a temporary phenomenon resulting from a period of reduced solar and seismic activity. "We've known for years that volcanoes are the largest producers of 'drafty window'-insulating gasses," one researcher mentioned. Regardless, it's clear that this debate will continue for some time.
We're going to keep seeing this kinda crap until the record labels are put in their grave once and for all. It's not a matter of them adapting to new consumer demand and letting us buy music online or whatever. No matter which way you cut it, they are still middlemen--sucking economic gain from both the consumer and musician. Albums cost way too much and artists aren't being fairly paid. Technlogy has obsoleted the information middle-man altogether. Perhaps what we need are companies devoted to assisting professional independent artists.
Hooray for mainstream credibility!
Darn! It went mainstream! Now I'm gonna have to search for something non-trendy again..
Where did you find the aluminum blocks and how much did they cost?
Is this any different? Would this company have still been sued if the local mp3 database had some sort of locking mechanism that only allowed songs to be played on one computer at a time? And regardless, how can they prove that more than one copy was played at a time, be it the original cd or the mp3 version or multiple instances of the mp3 version? Seems to me the RIAA had a weak case legally and the company for some reason figured it was better to just pay the bully and walk away without the bruises. Even with royalties paid for 'public performance' it should have been nowhere close to $1mil.
As long as this isn't a hoax, the word really needs to get out about this.
Ordinary DVB in Europe isn't encrypted at all is it? If that is so, perhaps our legislators should be made aware of this as an example that broadcast television really doesn't need copy controls. That'd be sweet if we US folk could get raw MPEG-2 streams of all our programming. Let the broadcasters pay by commercial time as par tradition and get rid of this privacy invading subscription crap.
Seems to me there are community wireless networks springing up all over. How long until this whole concept becomes the next "napster" of sorts? Each town would, of course, have to have some sort of coordinating team and lay some groundwork for efficient routing, but it could eventually get really interesting. And think further: IPv6! Now you have non-profit co-ops with huge blocks of IPs.
Then donate to the Debian project through the non-profit organization Software in the Public Interest. Why the heck would you give your money to a corporation? If you donate to SPI, you'll get a tax receipt too. Can't say that about MDK User Club.
See this page: http://www.debian.org/donations
Why choose Debian over Mandrake?
- More packages than any other distribution.
- Latest software versions available faster (use Debian's 'unstable' tree.. which btw, is pretty darn stable! Nothing like the buggy mess that is MDK cooker.)
- Packages are exceedingly well built, highly integrated, and well optimized.
- It's cleaner / faster. Debian's default install isn't loaded down with lots of junk you probably won't need anyhow.
- Responsive support mailing lists: be polite and you'll get quick answers
- Incredibly easy to maintain / update due to superior dependancy handling
- All packages are available from a single location with many mirrors. No hunting.
Please note that you should be using Debian testing (Woody) to install as it's very mature and up to date.
And now come the whining newbie flames about how Debian is so impossible to install or other such entirely unfounded nonsense. RTFM and try before you cry folks. (-:
Someone ought to implement this supposed new version of CIFS immediately, in plain defiance of their stupidity. Let M$ go ahead try to sue them--this would be especially effective if the program was written by some teenage kid from a small town. Then make an enormous public fuss about it and watch M$ be annihilated by half its employees leaving and its stock price falling to peanuts.
This is ultimately a pretty silly device, but it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make a big public fuss over it either way--simply on principle. A real danger would be some sort of next generation id-chip that injects nano-tech transmitters that cannot be removed with a scalpel and tweezers. The next step after that would be some sort of mind control functionality by interfacing nano-tranceivers with neurons. Think "a Clockwork Orange" meets the Borg..
NVidia's linux drivers are available only as closed source binaries. That is 100% unacceptable and anyone with a brain will not use their hardware until they change their policies on giving us developers documentation. Of course ATI doesn't exactly have the best record for releasing timely or complete documentation either..
You know why 3D still generally sucks on the PC? Because the market has been ground to a halt by patents and restrictive licensing. Imagine if the Internet developed this way. Stupid greed.
A.) Nobody.
Beer is a subject close to many slashdot-readers
Frankly, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is downright stupid--and no, I'm not trying to make some moral point. It's just not the slightest bit practical. C'mon now, think about it:
- it's expensive
- it really doesn't taste very good by itself
- it doesn't quench your thirst
- it damages your brain and liver
- it has a high fat content (10g/std. serving)
- it wastes your time if you get tipsy or a hangover
- it dulls your wit, judgment, and intelligence
- it creates all sorts of societal problems when used irresponsibly
- used as an escape, it is highly unhealthy psychologically
..and if you think it'll help you get guys/girls, you've got a bigger problem than lack of a mate. (ie. it should not be a requisite for acting sociable)
Why on earth would any self-respecting geek want to poison themselves with this crap? Stop listening to the big beer companies. Drink water. Live healthfully. Enjoy life.
Thanks for pointing that out. Bad wording on my part. I guess I was trying to differentiate between copyrighted works that do or do not allow redistribution. So if not license, what would you call a statement such as.. "copyright 2002, xyz. Unlimited redistribution permitted."?
There's nothing in our constitution that says your intellectual work must be kept from being freely used by the public at large. If tomorrow, congress decided to overthrow all "intellectual property" law, there would be no constitutional argument against it, though certainly many people would complain. The constitution gives congress the power to set up a system of copyright and patents. It doesn't make it a requirement. That power is intended for the benefit of the public by creating economic incentives to produce works which will eventually (and within a reasonably short time) enlarge the public domain. That power has been massively abused such that it is now a way for a handful of people to get super-rich on works that will only enter public domain many generations after they were originally produced. On the other hand, freedom of speech is a constitutional right--and a moral right as well. If the government errs in the process, it ought to err on the side of freedom of speech.
Theft is me downloading a copy of the song without paying you. Often when I download music from the internet I send checks to the artists for an amount of money I feel their music is worth.
Nope. Downloading a copyrighted song with restrictive licensing is not theft, it's a license violation. Theft is when you remove something from someone's possession in order to posess it yourself. Theft implies a mutually excludable resource. So it would still include your example about claiming you wrote a song when in fact you didn't--because only one person can be credited. If you download a song and then send a direct payment to the author instead, it's still a license violation because most likely the author doesn't actually own the licensing rights to the song.
Note that I'm not making a moral point here.. just clear up your wording.
Frankly, artists need to be reminded that they don't really need producers and distributers anymore--nor even restrictive licensing. I personally would buy a lot more music if I could send the money ONLY to the artist and not to some fat slimy weasel looking to take away our rights to make him/herself richer.
You might be interested in some of the more recent Linux audio applications that have begun maturing lately. The latest version of MuSE is pretty amazing. It's almost a cakewalk replacement, although some of the audio (wave) features are still in the works. Right now it's primarily a MIDI sequencer / notation app. and a quite useful one at that. Be sure to use a low-latency kernel and make the MuSE binary setuid root. Course that goes for any real-time-critical audio application under any *nix. AFAIK, Win NT uses some kinda hack to get around the ordinary kernel schedueling. Win9x essentually runs everything with supervisor privledge, hence its total lack of security and extreme vulnerability to viruses.