Yes lets the publisher decide if I can exercise my re-sale right. Like I let the publisher decide if I can play the music or video on a device the publisher do not approve. How about this: you buy a book on Amazon Kindle and then ask Amazon if you can re-sell it, lets see.
You see the problem? With current laws it is illegal to break DRM, even for legal purposes. That means that I have to ask the publisher for everything. That is real purpose of DRM, not the strawman "piracy".
And then you get your ass sued in Europe, at least I really really hope. The EU just ruled that first-sale is valid for software, that means you can't take away my right to re-sell your product. You really should lose any copyright protection if you use DRM. Copyright comes with rights, too. Like fair-use rights, backup rights, re-selling rights. But DRM takes away those rights. Why should you have any privileges if you choose to use DRM?
DRM exist only to make your customers suffer. No pirate will have any trouble with your DRM. If a customer don't want to pay you, they will not pay you. It don't matter if you add DRM or not. Either the DRM will be broken, and then you can download it anyway or your DRM will not be broken, but than nobody will use your software.
So don't matter how you look at it: DRM exist only to make your customers suffer.
Furthermore, DRM is Fuck You to all your customers. Not only it will make them suffer, but it takes their rights away. The right to create backups, fair-use rights, re-selling rights, etc. In my opinion anyone who uses DRM with the product should lose any copyright protections. Because DRM take away any rights it should also deny any privileges.
For what is a serial good? It's just a waste of time for both the developer and the customer. A pirate will just copy&paste the serial from a.txt file or from a serial generator.
So for what is that good? Just to annoy the customer?
Which is really sad in my opinion. There are many games that could benefit from life long updates. Updating the engine, offer new content, new maps, new anything game related. I would gladly pay every year to get my favourite game updated with new content.
I don't really understand the current model. You develop for 4 years a game, and then you are expected to make a profit in the first weeks. Why not develop a game for 2 years and offer continued updates and new content for subscribers? Why that kind of business model is only offered in online games?
I say it again: I would gladly pay anyone yearly to have my favourite game up-to-date, ever improving engine and effects and new content.
A few examples: Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, etc. almost all RPG games. Updated engines and new quests. Or Civilization. Updated engine, new technologies and new scenarios.
But no, every 5 years I need to buy a completely new game, that is the same but not like the old one. Civilization III then Civ IV, then Civ V, etc. The developers are wasting so much time to create a new game from scratch, which I maybe like or maybe not. Instead, just let me pay 10$ per year and update Civ III.
That's the fault of the operating system (i.e. Windows). I have Windows 7 for gaming and every time I start it to do some games, a few popup will come up, sometimes my screen will get black with a UAC dialog. That one time, Windows 7 just terminates my game and do a restart (for updates).
Use a real operating system like Linux and that stupid will go away. No more popups from 10 different applications informing you of an update, no more restarts to do updates (not even for a kernel update you need a restart). And yes, no more stupid "toolbar" that needs to be installed.
This is specifically why it's a library function so it is obvious that it is potentially a non-trivial operation.
Riiight. Every time I mention that as a big disadvantage of op-overloading, I get just ignored or called stupid to not see how great op-overloading is.
You mean on the "pay if you really like my software and have spare change and want to go to all the trouble to give me $5 honour system".
But lets go back to the question "why ads instead of donations / voluntary payments?" Sure you can put up ads, but then don't be surprised that I will block the ads.
I don't really understand the discussion here. For ages the people have made money by either a) work or b) create something of value that other people want to spend money on. You can still do that in the "digital age". Either do contract work, that is what Kickstarter is for example, or create some app that people want to buy. But if you create an app that you want to sell, don't give it away for free and hope for some stupid "honour system/agreement".
Also it's a fundamental right to block ads. So don't be surprised that people will start to block ads if they get too intrusive. Most of the people couldn't care less if 50% or 90% of the web disappears if they block the ads. I couldn't care less if slashdot.org would disappear tomorrow. Sure it would be little bit sad but at the end I would just do something else and would get my news from somewhere else.
Back to your shareware: I told before, nobody have asked for his shareware. It's nice that he wrote it, and it's nice that so many people liked it, but at the end that is not what is important. The important is: did anybody asked him to write the shareware? Since the answer is no, then he should be really glad that at least one gave him money. Since nobody asked him to write the software, he is the petitioner.
So true. If anything copyright terms should have been shorter and shorter because of progress in technology decrease the time to market and decreases the time to realize a profit for the author.
50 years ego you needed a longer copyright term for the author to realize a profit from his or her work, because you didn't had DVDs and the Internet. Today it's all digital and the publishing business have very sophisticated technology to bring the work to the market.
But because of Disney and Hollywood I predict that the public domain will be eliminated, by ever increasing copyright terms to protect Mickey Mouse. If it's not already eliminated by DRM and DRM protective laws. The craziness of DVD regions alone is the master example of how far Hollywood will go to rape the public interests.
Any politician that works for the public should press for shorter copyright terms and any politician that works for the public should press for the abolishment of DRM. Because the damage to the public clearly outweighs the benefits of a few. I would go so far as to lose any copyright protection by using any form of DRM.
Don't you get it? You will not "own" anything. Even if you pay the full price, you still not "own" anything. You will "own" a license that can be terminated for whatever reason and will severe limit your rights. Format shifting? Backup-copy? First-sale rights? It's already not possible. With a DVD or VHS you had at least your video as long as you can read the media. With the new digital media it will be remote deleted for whatever reason.
Yes shareware is normally for a limited time. But if I use it at that limited time and not pay you anything, it is still unethical?
As you can clearly read I did not write anything about cracking of the shareware. Also the original poster did not say anything about limited time or limited functionality of his shareware. So I don't know where you get your argument from.
They do want it. Because he is telling it was quite a success. But he offered the Shareware for free and people took it for free. And now he is telling that everybody is immoral because they took the free offer and don't give him money.
It's like my wine and cookies example. Go to a party and bring wine and cookies and call the people immoral because they take it for free and don't give him money.
They do want it. Because he is telling it was quite a success. But he offered the Shareware for free and people took it for free. And now he is telling that everybody is immoral because they took the free offer and don't give him money.
It's like my wine and cookies example. Go to a party and bring wine and cookies and call the people immoral because they take it for free and don't give him money.
You offer it for free. I take it for free. What is unethical about that? Did I ask you to write the shareware? No you did it at your own account. I did not ask for it, but you call me immoral or unethical if I take it for free (keep in mind that you gave it to me for free)?
I think you are the immoral here. Just because you done something it don't mean that you deserve money,
That's so much BS. Try this: Go to a party, bring some wine and some cookies. Now put that on the table to everyone can drink and eat your wine and cookies. Now put a sign up: give me $5 for my trouble to bring wine and cookies to the party.
How many will pay? My guess is nobody. How many will drink and eat your wine and cookie? everybody.
The lesson learned? People will not pay if you offer the stuff for free.
They did not ask for wine and cookies. You brought them by yourself. Likewise nobody was asking you to write the Shareware. You did it on your own account. Also you offer the Shareware for free. Why should anybody pay you anything? You should be glad to get at least 5$ from one person. But to expect to be paid, it's just stupid.
You could just sell your app like any other product. Or you could ask people what they want and demand a payment up front. Projects on Kickstarter are a great success. Why? Because the developers are offer people a solution and ask them to pay for it.
You sound like an artist. Somebody who painted or sing a song or made a picture and now demands to be paid. I not asked you for your picture, if you are offering the picture for free to look fine. But do not demand or expect to be paid, just because you done something.
Year right. That is why Linux is very much deployed on Desktop Computers. Like in Governments and in companies. Here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters The only reason is that Linux was not busted in the last 5 (or something like that) pown2own contests. It looks really bad if your system (ehem Microsoft) is busted in 5 minutes and a Linux system like Ubuntu will not get busted at all.
You are going to based your "security meter" on how many vulnerabilities were _patched_? All it means is that 65 vulnerabilities were patched, nothing more. It's like Microsoft that try to convince people that their IIS server is more secure, because Apache had more vulnerabilities patched than IIS.
In the Pwn2Own contest IE, Safari and Firefox were always busted, based on some sort of 0-day vulnerability. Just look at the past Pwn2Own contests. You really don't need Java at all to bust the web browsers.
Just look at the current Pwn2Onw:
0Day (32 Points each) * Google Chrome: Full sandbox escape and code execution * Microsoft Internet Explorer: Protective Mode Bypass and code execution
And you think Java is the most insecure on your system? I beg to differ. All the news are just bashing Java for no reason. Java is not more or less secure then Firefox or IE. The only mistake was from was Oracle to wait so long to fix the issues. You can blame Oracle for that, but stop with the stupid Java bashing.
Did you get a virus or trojan because of a Java Applet? It is so bothersome to update Java? Normally it's just a popup in Windows where you can click and update. Your browser have probably way more security holes and I'm not see people scream "fucking joke" if they need to update Firefox again. (On my Fedora Linux I need to update Firefox every week, you don't see me scream "fucking joke").
I don't understand why the bashing of Java? First, the vulnerabilities of Java are only for the Java Applets. And seconds, Java it not really a system critical component. Is more like Flash or Silverlight, or.Net. All of them have way more vulnerabilities then Java but you don't see them to be bashed all the time.
So, sure you should call out vulnerabilities so the company is going to fix them as soon as possible, but it's not that critical anyway. It's not like you just connect to the Internet and get a virus without to open any browsers first (Windows XP without SP). Any software have vulnerabilities but Java Applets are not so bad like Flash for example.
The problem with web developer is that you want your page pixel perfect. That was never the indented purpose of HTML and CSS. HTML and CSS make only "wishes", how you want it to be rendered and lay out, not how it shall look like. It was a big mistake to add in CSS absolute units like px.
HTML was always a device-neutral format. The web page should put together a markup of the structure of the page, that can be rendered differently on different output devices. Device-neutral can easily be achieved by using relative units like pt, em or %.
Do not assume that every user can see your 800x600 page, many users have different screen resolutions. And if you "optimize" your site for one resolution, it will look crap on bigger/smaller monitors.
Furthermore, do not assume that I will use your fonts. I really hate web sites that assume you have to use (for example) Times New Roman and Arial and "optimize" their web site to be rendered pixel perfect with this font only. HTML and CSS is not Pdf. Web developers should not assume a screen resolution, not assume that the users will use their favorite fonts or fonts sizes.
I really hate CSS definitions like "font: normal normal normal 12px/15px Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;" Why fix the font to 12px/15px? Just use relative sizes: 100%/150%. Just use "sans-serif" so the user can use their own font. Or that: font-family: 'YanoneKaffeesatzBold'; WTF is YanoneKaffeesatz? Why do I need to create a new connection to a separate server just for your stupid font?
Just a few example, where I think the whole HTML/CSS is moving in a wrong direction.
It's just like Flash or Silverlight but with the blessing of the W3C. Open source browsers and open source systems like Linux cannot support the Encrypted Media Extensions, without binary blobs.
What are you expect of "innovation" in a word processor? Word processors were pretty much feature complete 20 years ego. Just look at Latex, the basic functions were finalized in 1978.
The only "innovation" is new and unnecessary changes in the user interface and new document formats. With Odf we should have now an international format for documents and Pdf for exchange of finished documents.
Except the new document formats like Odf and OOXML, why should anyone buy in a 90 days release cycle of a Word Processor?
How is that easier then "other linux package manager"? If I want a game or application, I just click on "Install" and a few minutes later I'm playing/using that application.
Why are you quoting from "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems"? How that can be applied to Linux or other systems? And more important, how it prevents Microsoft from changing those requirements?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes lets the publisher decide if I can exercise my re-sale right.
Like I let the publisher decide if I can play the music or video on a device the publisher do not approve.
How about this: you buy a book on Amazon Kindle and then ask Amazon if you can re-sell it, lets see.
You see the problem? With current laws it is illegal to break DRM, even for legal purposes. That means that I have to ask the publisher for everything. That is real purpose of DRM, not the strawman "piracy".
And then you get your ass sued in Europe, at least I really really hope.
The EU just ruled that first-sale is valid for software, that means you can't take away my right to re-sell your product.
You really should lose any copyright protection if you use DRM. Copyright comes with rights, too. Like fair-use rights, backup rights, re-selling rights. But DRM takes away those rights. Why should you have any privileges if you choose to use DRM?
DRM exist only to make your customers suffer. No pirate will have any trouble with your DRM. If a customer don't want to pay you, they will not pay you. It don't matter if you add DRM or not. Either the DRM will be broken, and then you can download it anyway or your DRM will not be broken, but than nobody will use your software.
So don't matter how you look at it: DRM exist only to make your customers suffer.
Furthermore, DRM is Fuck You to all your customers. Not only it will make them suffer, but it takes their rights away. The right to create backups, fair-use rights, re-selling rights, etc. In my opinion anyone who uses DRM with the product should lose any copyright protections. Because DRM take away any rights it should also deny any privileges.
For what is a serial good? It's just a waste of time for both the developer and the customer. A pirate will just copy&paste the serial from a .txt file or from a serial generator.
So for what is that good? Just to annoy the customer?
Which is really sad in my opinion. There are many games that could benefit from life long updates. Updating the engine, offer new content, new maps, new anything game related. I would gladly pay every year to get my favourite game updated with new content.
I don't really understand the current model. You develop for 4 years a game, and then you are expected to make a profit in the first weeks. Why not develop a game for 2 years and offer continued updates and new content for subscribers? Why that kind of business model is only offered in online games?
I say it again: I would gladly pay anyone yearly to have my favourite game up-to-date, ever improving engine and effects and new content.
A few examples: Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, etc. almost all RPG games. Updated engines and new quests. Or Civilization. Updated engine, new technologies and new scenarios.
But no, every 5 years I need to buy a completely new game, that is the same but not like the old one. Civilization III then Civ IV, then Civ V, etc. The developers are wasting so much time to create a new game from scratch, which I maybe like or maybe not. Instead, just let me pay 10$ per year and update Civ III.
That's the fault of the operating system (i.e. Windows).
I have Windows 7 for gaming and every time I start it to do some games, a few popup will come up, sometimes my screen will get black with a UAC dialog. That one time, Windows 7 just terminates my game and do a restart (for updates).
Use a real operating system like Linux and that stupid will go away. No more popups from 10 different applications informing you of an update, no more restarts to do updates (not even for a kernel update you need a restart). And yes, no more stupid "toolbar" that needs to be installed.
This is specifically why it's a library function so it is obvious that it is potentially a non-trivial operation.
Riiight. Every time I mention that as a big disadvantage of op-overloading, I get just ignored or called stupid to not see how great op-overloading is.
You mean on the "pay if you really like my software and have spare change and want to go to all the trouble to give me $5 honour system".
But lets go back to the question "why ads instead of donations / voluntary payments?"
Sure you can put up ads, but then don't be surprised that I will block the ads.
I don't really understand the discussion here. For ages the people have made money by either a) work or b) create something of value that other people want to spend money on. You can still do that in the "digital age". Either do contract work, that is what Kickstarter is for example, or create some app that people want to buy. But if you create an app that you want to sell, don't give it away for free and hope for some stupid "honour system/agreement".
Also it's a fundamental right to block ads. So don't be surprised that people will start to block ads if they get too intrusive. Most of the people couldn't care less if 50% or 90% of the web disappears if they block the ads. I couldn't care less if slashdot.org would disappear tomorrow. Sure it would be little bit sad but at the end I would just do something else and would get my news from somewhere else.
Back to your shareware: I told before, nobody have asked for his shareware. It's nice that he wrote it, and it's nice that so many people liked it, but at the end that is not what is important. The important is: did anybody asked him to write the shareware? Since the answer is no, then he should be really glad that at least one gave him money. Since nobody asked him to write the software, he is the petitioner.
So true. If anything copyright terms should have been shorter and shorter because of progress in technology decrease the time to market and decreases the time to realize a profit for the author.
50 years ego you needed a longer copyright term for the author to realize a profit from his or her work, because you didn't had DVDs and the Internet. Today it's all digital and the publishing business have very sophisticated technology to bring the work to the market.
But because of Disney and Hollywood I predict that the public domain will be eliminated, by ever increasing copyright terms to protect Mickey Mouse. If it's not already eliminated by DRM and DRM protective laws. The craziness of DVD regions alone is the master example of how far Hollywood will go to rape the public interests.
Any politician that works for the public should press for shorter copyright terms and any politician that works for the public should press for the abolishment of DRM. Because the damage to the public clearly outweighs the benefits of a few. I would go so far as to lose any copyright protection by using any form of DRM.
Don't you get it? You will not "own" anything.
Even if you pay the full price, you still not "own" anything. You will "own" a license that can be terminated for whatever reason and will severe limit your rights. Format shifting? Backup-copy? First-sale rights? It's already not possible.
With a DVD or VHS you had at least your video as long as you can read the media. With the new digital media it will be remote deleted for whatever reason.
Yes shareware is normally for a limited time. But if I use it at that limited time and not pay you anything, it is still unethical?
As you can clearly read I did not write anything about cracking of the shareware. Also the original poster did not say anything about limited time or limited functionality of his shareware. So I don't know where you get your argument from.
They do want it. Because he is telling it was quite a success.
But he offered the Shareware for free and people took it for free. And now he is telling that everybody is immoral because they took the free offer and don't give him money.
It's like my wine and cookies example. Go to a party and bring wine and cookies and call the people immoral because they take it for free and don't give him money.
Reply to the wrong thread sorry.
They do want it. Because he is telling it was quite a success.
But he offered the Shareware for free and people took it for free. And now he is telling that everybody is immoral because they took the free offer and don't give him money.
It's like my wine and cookies example. Go to a party and bring wine and cookies and call the people immoral because they take it for free and don't give him money.
You offer it for free. I take it for free. What is unethical about that?
Did I ask you to write the shareware? No you did it at your own account.
I did not ask for it, but you call me immoral or unethical if I take it for free (keep in mind that you gave it to me for free)?
I think you are the immoral here. Just because you done something it don't mean that you deserve money,
That's so much BS.
Try this: Go to a party, bring some wine and some cookies. Now put that on the table to everyone can drink and eat your wine and cookies. Now put a sign up: give me $5 for my trouble to bring wine and cookies to the party.
How many will pay? My guess is nobody. How many will drink and eat your wine and cookie? everybody.
The lesson learned? People will not pay if you offer the stuff for free.
They did not ask for wine and cookies. You brought them by yourself. Likewise nobody was asking you to write the Shareware. You did it on your own account. Also you offer the Shareware for free. Why should anybody pay you anything? You should be glad to get at least 5$ from one person. But to expect to be paid, it's just stupid.
You could just sell your app like any other product. Or you could ask people what they want and demand a payment up front. Projects on Kickstarter are a great success. Why? Because the developers are offer people a solution and ask them to pay for it.
You sound like an artist. Somebody who painted or sing a song or made a picture and now demands to be paid. I not asked you for your picture, if you are offering the picture for free to look fine. But do not demand or expect to be paid, just because you done something.
Year right. That is why Linux is very much deployed on Desktop Computers. Like in Governments and in companies.
Here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters
The only reason is that Linux was not busted in the last 5 (or something like that) pown2own contests. It looks really bad if your system (ehem Microsoft) is busted in 5 minutes and a Linux system like Ubuntu will not get busted at all.
You are going to based your "security meter" on how many vulnerabilities were _patched_?
All it means is that 65 vulnerabilities were patched, nothing more.
It's like Microsoft that try to convince people that their IIS server is more secure, because Apache had more vulnerabilities patched than IIS.
In the Pwn2Own contest IE, Safari and Firefox were always busted, based on some sort of 0-day vulnerability. Just look at the past Pwn2Own contests. You really don't need Java at all to bust the web browsers.
Just look at the current Pwn2Onw:
0Day (32 Points each)
* Google Chrome: Full sandbox escape and code execution
* Microsoft Internet Explorer: Protective Mode Bypass and code execution
And you think Java is the most insecure on your system? I beg to differ.
All the news are just bashing Java for no reason. Java is not more or less secure then Firefox or IE.
The only mistake was from was Oracle to wait so long to fix the issues. You can blame Oracle for that, but stop with the stupid Java bashing.
Did you get a virus or trojan because of a Java Applet?
It is so bothersome to update Java? Normally it's just a popup in Windows where you can click and update.
Your browser have probably way more security holes and I'm not see people scream "fucking joke" if they need to update Firefox again. (On my Fedora Linux I need to update Firefox every week, you don't see me scream "fucking joke").
I don't understand why the bashing of Java? .Net. All of them have way more vulnerabilities then Java but you don't see them to be bashed all the time.
First, the vulnerabilities of Java are only for the Java Applets. And seconds, Java it not really a system critical component. Is more like Flash or Silverlight, or
So, sure you should call out vulnerabilities so the company is going to fix them as soon as possible, but it's not that critical anyway. It's not like you just connect to the Internet and get a virus without to open any browsers first (Windows XP without SP). Any software have vulnerabilities but Java Applets are not so bad like Flash for example.
The problem with web developer is that you want your page pixel perfect.
That was never the indented purpose of HTML and CSS. HTML and CSS make only "wishes", how you want it to be rendered and lay out, not how it shall look like. It was a big mistake to add in CSS absolute units like px.
HTML was always a device-neutral format. The web page should put together a markup of the structure of the page, that can be rendered differently on different output devices. Device-neutral can easily be achieved by using relative units like pt, em or %.
Do not assume that every user can see your 800x600 page, many users have different screen resolutions. And if you "optimize" your site for one resolution, it will look crap on bigger/smaller monitors.
Furthermore, do not assume that I will use your fonts. I really hate web sites that assume you have to use (for example) Times New Roman and Arial and "optimize" their web site to be rendered pixel perfect with this font only. HTML and CSS is not Pdf. Web developers should not assume a screen resolution, not assume that the users will use their favorite fonts or fonts sizes.
I really hate CSS definitions like "font: normal normal normal 12px/15px Arial, Verdana, sans-serif;"
Why fix the font to 12px/15px? Just use relative sizes: 100%/150%. Just use "sans-serif" so the user can use their own font. Or that: font-family: 'YanoneKaffeesatzBold'; WTF is YanoneKaffeesatz? Why do I need to create a new connection to a separate server just for your stupid font?
Just a few example, where I think the whole HTML/CSS is moving in a wrong direction.
Too bad the W3C is now working on DRM for the web.
Encrypted Media Extensions
It is not possible to have an open web and have DRMed content. You cannot give me the keys and the encryption scheme and to expect DRM to work.
Microsoft, Google and Netflix want to add DRM-hooks to W3C HTML5 standard
The BBC Petitions the W3C to Implement DRM for HTML5
It's just like Flash or Silverlight but with the blessing of the W3C.
Open source browsers and open source systems like Linux cannot support the Encrypted Media Extensions, without binary blobs.
What are you expect of "innovation" in a word processor?
Word processors were pretty much feature complete 20 years ego.
Just look at Latex, the basic functions were finalized in 1978.
The only "innovation" is new and unnecessary changes in the user interface and new document formats.
With Odf we should have now an international format for documents and Pdf for exchange of finished documents.
Except the new document formats like Odf and OOXML, why should anyone buy in a 90 days release cycle of a Word Processor?
Sorry I misread. Yes you are right of course.
How is that easier then "other linux package manager"? If I want a game or application, I just click on "Install" and a few minutes later I'm playing/using that application.
Why are you quoting from "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems"?
How that can be applied to Linux or other systems? And more important, how it prevents Microsoft from changing those requirements?