Fortunately, someone linked to a howto on how to remove it. May actually do so. I know I'm legal, so what business is it of theirs? And don't tell me I'm illegally hacking my software. I'm merely choosing to uninstall something that has no uninstall control (gee, doesn't that sound like SPYWARE to you!?).
They would want importing a region 1 DVD to be illegal too I'm sure.
Why? They've already basically made it illegal (at least, if the UK also has made breaking encryption illegal as the DMCA has in the US) to play it back. They don't care if it's legal to import or not because they've made it useless for anything except serving as a coaster or being carged into shuriken.
I think they can get around this by recording from an orbit that's at least 7 miles above the Earth's surface.
I think the Martians might want to go a little higher. 7 miles altitude is well within the atmosphere (37,000 ft) and so anything at that altitude is going to be brought down by drag. The generally-recognized official boundary of space is at about 50 miles. The space shuttle orbits at an altitude of around 120-350 miles, depending on mission.
But if they want to record at 7 miles' altitude, let them; they won't have much time to listen to what they've recorded before their asses turn to flaming dust.
First sale allows you to resell a good without having to send payment again to the holder of the copyright on that good -- so you can re-sell a book or CD, for example, without having to pay the author/publisher or artist/label again. But the first sale doctrine doesn't have anything to do with copying. It just has to do with resale.
"Copy right" (two words, deliberately) is about the right to copy. First sale is about the right of the buyer to resell what they buy to someone else.
Or is it? Although the arguments against overly-restrictive copyright and DMCA-type laws is usually brought up when discussing music, the future of society as a whole is at stake. We have long shared knowledge and information and ideas freely among one another and did not have these ridiculous and too-long-lived barriers against new ideas or new inventions. Now we do, and the threat of stifling society is now very real.
People who fought for freedom and civil rights did what they did because they knew how vitally important those fights were. Don't you think that the very future of society is something important to fight for? Even if the fight begins in an unexpected place (music fans)?
Just wondering the same thing. Why doesent Zone alarm flag this?
It did for me (blocked, since I didn't know what the heck it was trying to get online for). And since I run a legit corporate copy, it's staying blocked.
Well, yaknow, you're still missing the fact that it's not a US business, so US law doesn't apply to them. The RIAA seems to be missing this too, and what business does an American (... "Assocation of America") association have poking its nose into a foreign sovereign nation? Absolutely none.
I guess you missed point 3 of the conveniently-broken-into-numbered-list article, if you even bothered to read it:
"The site AllOfMP3.com does regularly transfer substantial amounts of royalties to the Russian organizations for collective management of rights such as ROMS and FAIR, which have granted the site licenses to legally deliver music through the Internet....
Typical Slashdot. Never R-ing TFA. Or posting about what they don't comprehend.
Oh, I agree with you that it's silly. Don't get me wrong there. I really don't think that people are robbing them as much as they like to whine about. And people do what you do, and people extract audio from DVDs so they can listen to the performances in iTunes or in cars or on iPods or whatever, and I don't see anything wrong with that either, personally.
Alas, you'd have to prove that you really do have fair use, and from what I've seen the courts have sided with big business (I'm disgusted but unsurprised, that seems to be the rule these days) that you no longer have any fair use rights to extract stuff for personal use (technically, extracting anything is against the law... disgusting but true, and it's something that a lot of people, including me, hate) no matter what the intended use is. I'd LIKE to see a court case rule that it's OK to extract for interoperability (i.e. my car stereo can play Redbook or unprotected WMA or MP3, but it can't play the audio track from a standard DVD, so to play back concert disks of stuff that isn't available via online music stores, artist websites, or standard Redbook CD, extraction would be required).
What bugs me is that there is apparently no problem with ripping CD audio for personal use and making MP3 compilation disks, or burning CDs of iTunes downloads, but if I wanted to extract audio from concert disks to listen to in the car, or record the audio portion of a RealAudio/RealVideo stream to a standard audio format, I'd get in trouble if they could prove I did it. Even though I've already paid for the download or the CD or the membership to the artist website.
They haven't managed to tromp first right of sale yet, although they've whined that used-CD stores are costing them money the same way that used-book shops have been complained about by publishers and/or authors -- but so far neither of those gripefests have gotten anywhere. Fortunately.
As for the last gripe of ours... they conveniently say that you have bought the physical media, not what's on it, and you can do whatever you want with the media, but not the content. So apparently by their idiotic logic, you can do whatever you want with the disk, but you can't do anything with what's on it other than play it back or sell the whole disk. No copying, they say.
A law needs to be passed ensuring that private individuals who wish to do any of these things for their private use, as long as the results of the copy/extraction are not given to anyone else and as long as the individual did pay for the media they're working with, are in the clear. What harm is being done, after all, after they've already got their money, and no one else is getting a free ride out of it?
We wouldn't give a shit if it was a Russian site stealing from Russian artists. But since it's a Russian site stealing from US artists/labels (amongst others) that's wholly a different story.
Make that "Russian site that isn't stealing from anybody and is completely legal but is charging less than the fat cats of big business think should be charged so said big business starts slandering said site to try to kill fair competition". Get the spelling right.
Can a company claim that recording their TV show is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a VHS tape.
Where exactly does the law say that using DVDs is illegal where using tapes is not? It doesn't. And as others point out, the problem comes in when you give those recordings away. You can do what you want for your own private use. Oh, and "copying a DVD" isn't always illegal. It's only illegal if you break encryption to do it. I copy DVDs all the time at work to duplicate disks containing our research data. Am I breaking the law? No, but I'm still copying DVDs.
Get your head on straight and think before you type.
Of course, it's good for your business as you repeatedly get paid to do the same job, which is probably why security companies aren't actually eliminating the problem. But it's still bad because of the threat to the rest of the Internet-using public.
If the adult screams at you for not solving anything, give them instructions on how to give the kid a non-admin account, or they can pay you to set up the policy editor so the kid can't install anything.
Because copyright infringement is not, and never has been, something for the government to barge its nose into, and there's nothing to hide in an infringement case, that's why.
and brought us dangerously close to socialized medicine.
Uh, and socialized medicine is SOOOOO bad for the rest of the world. Oh, wait, it seems to be working fine in Canada and Europe...
It's better to deal with a disgruntled patients relative or power of attorney
If the person calling has the power of attorney and was contacted in the first place due to that, then no it isn't. It's better to give the information required, as you are required to do since the person you're talking to is the one who has the legal authority to make the decisions. You can't withhold the data from them. Giving info to a total stranger is one thing. Giving info to the person YOU CONTACTED, due to their being LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to make the decisions, is another.
But making a sweeping generalization that the products just suck when millions of human beings completely disagree with you is not going to get you any points with Apple or anyone else.
Uh, a lot of people do think that Apple has a QA problem. I've seen it both on and off Apple fan boards. So if you're going to make a sweeping generalization that he's totally wrong and that no one will agree, do some research. There are plenty of people who agree, and they're not going to give you or anyone else any points for an attitude of "I don't agree with him, therefore he must have only been trying to get people to look at his ads, and he's an idiot."
There's always multiple viewpoints for any story, and having a different viewpoint doesn't make anyone an idiot.
Why don't you write a counter-opinion piece that has backup evidence, like this guy has some evidence and cites specific instances to support his hypothesis, instead of whining on a forum with no proof?
I do watch all three shows but joined kind of late (I saw an episode some years ago that tapped into a passing interest of mine and they used every buzzword in sight, and did it badly, so for a long time I refused to give the show a try. Bad choice on their part and to this day I refuse to watch that epsidoe again -- which show and episode will remain nameless). So I missed that one.
That sounds similar to a NY episode I saw but not quite... anyway, I have noticed that CSI does do that. They'll take case ideas from real life, and often distort things in the process, and get it all wrong (like what happened to me). And this gives the clueless public a bad image of what for those of us who partake in the interest in question (in this case gaming), so the public doesn't bother to find the truth but assumes that if it's on TV it must be true.
CSI overall is a good show but I'd like to see them try harder to be truthful about what they portray. (And that's not even counting the magic photo-manip software that can get a HD-quality image out of a VGA-resolution security camera).
When you do have that run of bad luck, and need a hand to get back on your feet, I hope the only people you find are also card carrying elitist libertarian assholes that slap you in the face instead.
Wow, with a "screw you" attitude like that, I wonder who would want to help you? Whatever happened to helping people in need, no matter who they were? Oh yeah. It's all "me first" these days. Sad...
It's a lot harder to change something like this than it is to change web browsers, in case that's what you had in mind. PDF requires an investment on both sides and both sides have to agree mutually to change. If they do not, then no change will occur. However, with a web browser, the site doesn't have to be changed as HTML is designed to be interpreted by any client the user throws at it, and so only the viewers have to change their habits. So while a shift in web browser market share is possible, booting out the very-entrenched PDF -- have you really looked around to see how much it's used? I work in a research lab and every single science journal out there that provides online content uses PDF, for instance -- is a huge, tall order that I doubt will happen any time soon. Especially if the "replacement" is Windows-biased. And printers largely use Macs and researchers often use a mix of Mac and Unix machines. If it's not very multiplatform, it will be dead in the water.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, someone linked to a howto on how to remove it. May actually do so. I know I'm legal, so what business is it of theirs? And don't tell me I'm illegally hacking my software. I'm merely choosing to uninstall something that has no uninstall control (gee, doesn't that sound like SPYWARE to you!?).
They would want importing a region 1 DVD to be illegal too I'm sure.
Why? They've already basically made it illegal (at least, if the UK also has made breaking encryption illegal as the DMCA has in the US) to play it back. They don't care if it's legal to import or not because they've made it useless for anything except serving as a coaster or being carged into shuriken.
I think they can get around this by recording from an orbit that's at least 7 miles above the Earth's surface.
I think the Martians might want to go a little higher. 7 miles altitude is well within the atmosphere (37,000 ft) and so anything at that altitude is going to be brought down by drag. The generally-recognized official boundary of space is at about 50 miles. The space shuttle orbits at an altitude of around 120-350 miles, depending on mission.
But if they want to record at 7 miles' altitude, let them; they won't have much time to listen to what they've recorded before their asses turn to flaming dust.
First sale allows you to resell a good without having to send payment again to the holder of the copyright on that good -- so you can re-sell a book or CD, for example, without having to pay the author/publisher or artist/label again. But the first sale doctrine doesn't have anything to do with copying. It just has to do with resale.
"Copy right" (two words, deliberately) is about the right to copy. First sale is about the right of the buyer to resell what they buy to someone else.
Or is it? Although the arguments against overly-restrictive copyright and DMCA-type laws is usually brought up when discussing music, the future of society as a whole is at stake. We have long shared knowledge and information and ideas freely among one another and did not have these ridiculous and too-long-lived barriers against new ideas or new inventions. Now we do, and the threat of stifling society is now very real.
People who fought for freedom and civil rights did what they did because they knew how vitally important those fights were. Don't you think that the very future of society is something important to fight for? Even if the fight begins in an unexpected place (music fans)?
Just wondering the same thing. Why doesent Zone alarm flag this?
It did for me (blocked, since I didn't know what the heck it was trying to get online for). And since I run a legit corporate copy, it's staying blocked.
He's also telling the truth, crazy as it sounds:
BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | Square fruit stuns Japanese shoppers
Well, yaknow, you're still missing the fact that it's not a US business, so US law doesn't apply to them. The RIAA seems to be missing this too, and what business does an American (... "Assocation of America") association have poking its nose into a foreign sovereign nation? Absolutely none.
I guess you missed point 3 of the conveniently-broken-into-numbered-list article, if you even bothered to read it:
...
"The site AllOfMP3.com does regularly transfer substantial amounts of royalties to the Russian organizations for collective management of rights such as ROMS and FAIR, which have granted the site licenses to legally deliver music through the Internet.
Typical Slashdot. Never R-ing TFA. Or posting about what they don't comprehend.
Oh, I agree with you that it's silly. Don't get me wrong there. I really don't think that people are robbing them as much as they like to whine about. And people do what you do, and people extract audio from DVDs so they can listen to the performances in iTunes or in cars or on iPods or whatever, and I don't see anything wrong with that either, personally.
... they conveniently say that you have bought the physical media, not what's on it, and you can do whatever you want with the media, but not the content. So apparently by their idiotic logic, you can do whatever you want with the disk, but you can't do anything with what's on it other than play it back or sell the whole disk. No copying, they say.
Alas, you'd have to prove that you really do have fair use, and from what I've seen the courts have sided with big business (I'm disgusted but unsurprised, that seems to be the rule these days) that you no longer have any fair use rights to extract stuff for personal use (technically, extracting anything is against the law... disgusting but true, and it's something that a lot of people, including me, hate) no matter what the intended use is. I'd LIKE to see a court case rule that it's OK to extract for interoperability (i.e. my car stereo can play Redbook or unprotected WMA or MP3, but it can't play the audio track from a standard DVD, so to play back concert disks of stuff that isn't available via online music stores, artist websites, or standard Redbook CD, extraction would be required).
What bugs me is that there is apparently no problem with ripping CD audio for personal use and making MP3 compilation disks, or burning CDs of iTunes downloads, but if I wanted to extract audio from concert disks to listen to in the car, or record the audio portion of a RealAudio/RealVideo stream to a standard audio format, I'd get in trouble if they could prove I did it. Even though I've already paid for the download or the CD or the membership to the artist website.
They haven't managed to tromp first right of sale yet, although they've whined that used-CD stores are costing them money the same way that used-book shops have been complained about by publishers and/or authors -- but so far neither of those gripefests have gotten anywhere. Fortunately.
As for the last gripe of ours
A law needs to be passed ensuring that private individuals who wish to do any of these things for their private use, as long as the results of the copy/extraction are not given to anyone else and as long as the individual did pay for the media they're working with, are in the clear. What harm is being done, after all, after they've already got their money, and no one else is getting a free ride out of it?
This is true, although I had the DMCA in mind when I wrote that post. I should have specified that.
I stopped reading when you put profanity in the very first sentence.
We wouldn't give a shit if it was a Russian site stealing from Russian artists. But since it's a Russian site stealing from US artists/labels (amongst others) that's wholly a different story.
Make that "Russian site that isn't stealing from anybody and is completely legal but is charging less than the fat cats of big business think should be charged so said big business starts slandering said site to try to kill fair competition". Get the spelling right.
Can a company claim that recording their TV show is breaking their copyright? Yes, if you recorded it on a DVD. No, if you record it on a VHS tape.
Where exactly does the law say that using DVDs is illegal where using tapes is not? It doesn't. And as others point out, the problem comes in when you give those recordings away. You can do what you want for your own private use. Oh, and "copying a DVD" isn't always illegal. It's only illegal if you break encryption to do it. I copy DVDs all the time at work to duplicate disks containing our research data. Am I breaking the law? No, but I'm still copying DVDs.
Get your head on straight and think before you type.
Of course, it's good for your business as you repeatedly get paid to do the same job, which is probably why security companies aren't actually eliminating the problem. But it's still bad because of the threat to the rest of the Internet-using public.
If the adult screams at you for not solving anything, give them instructions on how to give the kid a non-admin account, or they can pay you to set up the policy editor so the kid can't install anything.
Because copyright infringement is not, and never has been, something for the government to barge its nose into, and there's nothing to hide in an infringement case, that's why.
You misspelled "doesn't look like crap".
Perhaps HIPPA is broken because the goverment can seldom do anything correctly except for collecting taxes.
They can't even do that right.
IRS Says Offshore Tax Evasion Is Widespread - Global Policy Forum - Nations and States
By using names, you're theoretically announcing that Mrs. Smith has some unknown medical condition worthy of seeing a doctor.
Like being alive. That requires yearly checkups, you know. Or are we not allowed to know that the person next to us is alive, rather than dead?
I am not calling you an idiot, but your comment is idiotic.
and brought us dangerously close to socialized medicine.
Uh, and socialized medicine is SOOOOO bad for the rest of the world. Oh, wait, it seems to be working fine in Canada and Europe...
It's better to deal with a disgruntled patients relative or power of attorney
If the person calling has the power of attorney and was contacted in the first place due to that, then no it isn't. It's better to give the information required, as you are required to do since the person you're talking to is the one who has the legal authority to make the decisions. You can't withhold the data from them. Giving info to a total stranger is one thing. Giving info to the person YOU CONTACTED, due to their being LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to make the decisions, is another.
But making a sweeping generalization that the products just suck when millions of human beings completely disagree with you is not going to get you any points with Apple or anyone else.
Uh, a lot of people do think that Apple has a QA problem. I've seen it both on and off Apple fan boards. So if you're going to make a sweeping generalization that he's totally wrong and that no one will agree, do some research. There are plenty of people who agree, and they're not going to give you or anyone else any points for an attitude of "I don't agree with him, therefore he must have only been trying to get people to look at his ads, and he's an idiot."
There's always multiple viewpoints for any story, and having a different viewpoint doesn't make anyone an idiot.
Why don't you write a counter-opinion piece that has backup evidence, like this guy has some evidence and cites specific instances to support his hypothesis, instead of whining on a forum with no proof?
I do watch all three shows but joined kind of late (I saw an episode some years ago that tapped into a passing interest of mine and they used every buzzword in sight, and did it badly, so for a long time I refused to give the show a try. Bad choice on their part and to this day I refuse to watch that epsidoe again -- which show and episode will remain nameless). So I missed that one.
... anyway, I have noticed that CSI does do that. They'll take case ideas from real life, and often distort things in the process, and get it all wrong (like what happened to me). And this gives the clueless public a bad image of what for those of us who partake in the interest in question (in this case gaming), so the public doesn't bother to find the truth but assumes that if it's on TV it must be true.
That sounds similar to a NY episode I saw but not quite
CSI overall is a good show but I'd like to see them try harder to be truthful about what they portray. (And that's not even counting the magic photo-manip software that can get a HD-quality image out of a VGA-resolution security camera).
a. you watch way too much CSI: Miami (yes, I loved that the young woman was the winner);
Haven't seen that one. Tell me about it?
When you do have that run of bad luck, and need a hand to get back on your feet, I hope the only people you find are also card carrying elitist libertarian assholes that slap you in the face instead.
Wow, with a "screw you" attitude like that, I wonder who would want to help you? Whatever happened to helping people in need, no matter who they were? Oh yeah. It's all "me first" these days. Sad...
It's a lot harder to change something like this than it is to change web browsers, in case that's what you had in mind. PDF requires an investment on both sides and both sides have to agree mutually to change. If they do not, then no change will occur. However, with a web browser, the site doesn't have to be changed as HTML is designed to be interpreted by any client the user throws at it, and so only the viewers have to change their habits. So while a shift in web browser market share is possible, booting out the very-entrenched PDF -- have you really looked around to see how much it's used? I work in a research lab and every single science journal out there that provides online content uses PDF, for instance -- is a huge, tall order that I doubt will happen any time soon. Especially if the "replacement" is Windows-biased. And printers largely use Macs and researchers often use a mix of Mac and Unix machines. If it's not very multiplatform, it will be dead in the water.