The point if not whether or not there is a legal DVD player for linux now, the point is whether or not there was a legal DVD player for linux when DeCSS was first published.
Is this really something important? How many people will actually start developing for something that is just on the stage "we-will-make-it-we-really-will" and stated in the press release as the best thing since sliced bread?
Well I'm not surprised... these guys managed to sell every other american an album about how screwed up the way of life in america is and half of the people who bought the album didnt notice... so... these guys could probably pull off worse than this =)
Really... Now I buy quite alot of CDs... but my point was more like this: If you get into the record industry based only on a wish to get rich, you: 1. Wont contribute much new, or good stuff. 2. Wont make it big since it takes so much work / inspiration.
Of course you should be able to make a living off music, but if youre only looking for the money, then go somewhere else.
Except that I, as a musician, love it when others hear and like my music! Musicians get almost nothing for each CD sold anyway. The same argument could be held for software... if you made a program, you really have no reason to share it with other people. The whole free software movement shows how wrong that is.
As a final note, this is not about theft. Copyright infringement != theft.
That's because you're a person. Of course, linux can be fine as a home-user's desktop, but as for companies, many big companies run custom-written software for their own business-specific needs. Do you think all these companies will just switch to linux and rewrite much of the software just to have a little more stability or something? No they wont... but if there's a possibility to run their old apps, they might. WINE could greatly speed up the rate in which people become familiar with Linux.
Yeah... and if you're using up hotmail's resources they should have all right to monitor that and do whatever they like with the info they get. Ohhhh and your ISP, you're using their resources, so they can monitor everything they do for whatever purpouses too can't they? And it's not a privacy issue? ok.
Yes, but obfuscating your identity during any other act is not immoral or unethical, and should defenitely not be illegal. Removing online annonymity would be the equivalent of banning ski masks. Kinda like making all hammers illegal just because it's possible that some ass may crush your window with one.
Ok, here's something for all you people who just love that Fire in a theatre example:
Just because you can't yell fire in a theatre, that doesn't mean it's illegal to speak at all in a theatre. Point: DeCSS isn't illegal, piracy is illegal.
This is the 'Napster generates sales' defence. I've often seen it used, but never seen it verified. Anecdotal evidence aside, is there any hard evidence that 'piracy' leads to increased sales and/or readers?
As in... try before you buy? Yes thank you that's very true... I buy more CDs now because I hear more good music through mp3s. I even specially imported a CD that was unavailable in my country because I loved a song I heard as an mp3.
I've heard many many others say the same thing. If you look at the actual sales, have they gone down over the last years? No, they've increased (despite the record industry's hard attempts at scaring people away with crap like Britney Spears).
They originally released IE for free. Two reasons: One - they wanted to dominate the market by forcing Netscape out of business (pay $40 for theirs, or try ours for free!), and Two - they planned all along to add it to the OS once the market was theirs.
That's pretty much MS FUD... Netscape was free to use for almost everyone, only companies needed to pay for it. And, let's face it, it's not in the offices where Netscape was beat, it's in the homes...
If you read the post I was replying to, you might have seen that the person who wrote it was suggesting he was a dumbass for wanting to leave the US (which you said you weren't force to etc etc), just because some people were risking their lives to get into the US.
Now as for other countries, name, for instance, one European country that you can't leave if you don't like it? In fact, I never hear about emigration problems... it's about immigration problems.
Yepp... And you're all that and a bag of chips. Looking at your user info just made me laugh... and just following your replies to this article is a comedy in itself. Let's see... you're the lead programmer for a g-g-g-game company that hasn't registered the domain you claim to have, and with a yahoo email address. Oh and you've written all that stuff, and you can break any encryption in 3 days, and you sponsor that competition and you're in NRA and W3C and none of your last 10 comments have a score over 0.
Come on... if you haven't got any true and useful information to contribute instead of all this bragging about your made-up heroism, then why dont you go back to the AOL chat where you came from.
Or, in short: This info is most probably not true.
Maybe that's true in the US or in canada or somewhere. Europe's cell phone net is digital however, which means you can't just pick an ordinary radio receiver to drop in on the conversations.
Plus, your technique meaning you actually need to be somewhere to hear the conversations. It DOES take government resources to be everywhere at once.
Ohhh yes and the CSS prevents this soooo much yes? and DeCSS makes it soooo much more possible to do this? And, isn't there already a law against this kind of unauthorized use? It's got nothing to do with the DMCA
Clue: The Digital Millenium Copyright act is supposed to prevent unauthorized copying. Displaying it to other people has nothing to do with whether or not the content was digital in the first place.
What the hell is an unauthorized use? Pushing my movie box up your asshole? Watching the movie? If I buy a movie for my scraped-together coins, it fscking better be my movie to watch whenever I want. If i bought the movie, what is an unauthorized use? (regardless of if it's all in bold or not)
Why should there even be something called "unauthorized use"? How about "unauthorized copying"? Isn't that enough? Please explain to me, why do I need to be "authorized" to use something I already bought and paid for?
This is what the editors is trying to make your closed eyes open to. The bold use is put there, simply because if the DMCA people were truly serious about what they say they are, the phrase should read unauthorized copying.
Wow! That surely is a great trade secret! So great they have to keep it "secret" with EULAs and make specificly sure that I can't design a product that can communicate with it!</SARCASM>
That sounds like MS crap to me... if there was nothing more to it, then I don't see why the problem hasnt been fixed on the *nix side already.
In fact you can run it as a user and it just prompts you for the root password.
Then here's the obvious question: Why, on my multiuser system, should both me and my gf be forced to know the root pass, just because I like a higher resoloution than she does? If I change my resoloution, I want:
1. Not to have to give a root pass (which lets me muck up the entire system too) 2. For that resoloution to be there again the next time I start Windows/X/Mac OS/whatever system it is.
Linux has a very long way to go... Does Mandrake autodetect your graphics card/monitor so I don't have to sit and edit XF86Config by hand (which I've had to for 2 of the 3 computers I've installed)? Thats the second problem... I find it ok to switch resoloutions with a key combo, but thats after I've spend hours figuring out a very cryptic config file or very cryptic config programs. No regular user would be able to, or want to, do that.
Slashdot Mirror
The point if not whether or not there is a legal DVD player for linux now, the point is whether or not there was a legal DVD player for linux when DeCSS was first published.
We all know the answer to that question.
Hey! Al Gore created the Internet, right? ;-)
Is this really something important? How many people will actually start developing for something that is just on the stage "we-will-make-it-we-really-will" and stated in the press release as the best thing since sliced bread?
Well I'm not surprised... these guys managed to sell every other american an album about how screwed up the way of life in america is and half of the people who bought the album didnt notice... so... these guys could probably pull off worse than this =)
If you get into the record industry based only on a wish to get rich, you:
1. Wont contribute much new, or good stuff.
2. Wont make it big since it takes so much work / inspiration.
Of course you should be able to make a living off music, but if youre only looking for the money, then go somewhere else.
If youre in the music business for the money alone, then get another job.
As a final note, this is not about theft. Copyright infringement != theft.
That's because you're a person. Of course, linux can be fine as a home-user's desktop, but as for companies, many big companies run custom-written software for their own business-specific needs. Do you think all these companies will just switch to linux and rewrite much of the software just to have a little more stability or something? No they wont... but if there's a possibility to run their old apps, they might. WINE could greatly speed up the rate in which people become familiar with Linux.
You missed the part "And it's not a privacy issue?"
Yeah... and if you're using up hotmail's resources they should have all right to monitor that and do whatever they like with the info they get. Ohhhh and your ISP, you're using their resources, so they can monitor everything they do for whatever purpouses too can't they? And it's not a privacy issue? ok.
Yes, but obfuscating your identity during any other act is not immoral or unethical, and should defenitely not be illegal. Removing online annonymity would be the equivalent of banning ski masks. Kinda like making all hammers illegal just because it's possible that some ass may crush your window with one.
Just because you can't yell fire in a theatre, that doesn't mean it's illegal to speak at all in a theatre. Point: DeCSS isn't illegal, piracy is illegal.
As in... try before you buy? Yes thank you that's very true... I buy more CDs now because I hear more good music through mp3s. I even specially imported a CD that was unavailable in my country because I loved a song I heard as an mp3.
I've heard many many others say the same thing. If you look at the actual sales, have they gone down over the last years? No, they've increased (despite the record industry's hard attempts at scaring people away with crap like Britney Spears).
That's pretty much MS FUD... Netscape was free to use for almost everyone, only companies needed to pay for it. And, let's face it, it's not in the offices where Netscape was beat, it's in the homes...
Now as for other countries, name, for instance, one European country that you can't leave if you don't like it? In fact, I never hear about emigration problems... it's about immigration problems.
That means the US has to be The Perfect Place [tm] to live in.
Kindly teach your brain cell to duplicate before making any further statements.
Come on... if you haven't got any true and useful information to contribute instead of all this bragging about your made-up heroism, then why dont you go back to the AOL chat where you came from.
Or, in short: This info is most probably not true.
Plus, your technique meaning you actually need to be somewhere to hear the conversations. It DOES take government resources to be everywhere at once.
Clue: The Digital Millenium Copyright act is supposed to prevent unauthorized copying. Displaying it to other people has nothing to do with whether or not the content was digital in the first place.
Why should there even be something called "unauthorized use"? How about "unauthorized copying"? Isn't that enough? Please explain to me, why do I need to be "authorized" to use something I already bought and paid for?
This is what the editors is trying to make your closed eyes open to. The bold use is put there, simply because if the DMCA people were truly serious about what they say they are, the phrase should read unauthorized copying.
I think that should be... If you did not pay for your service again, and again, and again, and again... you can not use it.
That sounds like MS crap to me... if there was nothing more to it, then I don't see why the problem hasnt been fixed on the *nix side already.
Yes, but we all knew, and so did they, how horribly dangerous photocd images and help files are... they should've done this a long time ago!
that you're repetetive
Then here's the obvious question:
Why, on my multiuser system, should both me and my gf be forced to know the root pass, just because I like a higher resoloution than she does? If I change my resoloution, I want:
1. Not to have to give a root pass (which lets me muck up the entire system too)
2. For that resoloution to be there again the next time I start Windows/X/Mac OS/whatever system it is.
Linux has a very long way to go... Does Mandrake autodetect your graphics card/monitor so I don't have to sit and edit XF86Config by hand (which I've had to for 2 of the 3 computers I've installed)? Thats the second problem... I find it ok to switch resoloutions with a key combo, but thats after I've spend hours figuring out a very cryptic config file or very cryptic config programs. No regular user would be able to, or want to, do that.