Altogether, this is just business as usual for Microsoft... <<<SNIP>>> We have seen exactly the same thing with PocketPC/WindowsCE, and they just don't seem to learn.
I agree with your post on everything but the last bit. It isn't Microsoft that's unable to learn - they've very effectively learned that these techniques *work*. That's why they do it over and over again.
Will it work this time? I hope not. Time will tell.
"If a student wants to do a term paper, let's say do a video presentation on the Holocaust... and wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from Schindler's List to put into that Holocaust presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to do that, is that illegal?" asked 2600 attorney Martin Garbus.
Valenti ducked the question. "The student could do that by getting an analog version of Schindler's List, because that's not encrypted," he said."
One of the arguments defending DeCSS is that pirating movies is currently impractical due to the huge size of the files involved. The MPAA argued (IIRC) that technology will change all that.
Fair enough. They're extrapolating into a possible (likely)future.
I think we can do the same. I'll bet that in the years to come it won't be possible to obtain an analog recording (VHS, Laservision, whatever) of a movie made, say, 8 years from now.
I checked out the web site, and saw references to multicasting. I've heard of it before, but I know virtually nothing about it. Can some kindly soul provide me with information or useful thinks.
There *are* other corporations, American and otherwise, that do far more morally reprehensible things than Microsoft.
I regret that this may come as a shock to some people here.
There may actually be other companies out there which are disliked more, and by more people.
Mea culpa, I guess. If I hadn't gone off-topic with my post about Microsoft programmers we wouldn't be fighting over just how evil Microsoft really is.
I'll back away from ethical issues here and focus on what I consider my major (and least offtopic) point: Never underestimate the abilities of Microsoft's R&D people. They are, as individuals, a match for open source people.
The difference - the thing that makes open source people all dewy-eyed - is the great potential in writing the best software you possibly can without worrying about controlling a market or trying to fsck up as many competitors as you can.
This is a misconception that is unfair to the individuals who work as programmers at Microsoft. It also may cause many free software advocates to underestimate Microsoft's programming abilities. Microsoft has some excellent programmers - even the WinCE team must have some first rate people. The problem is that these folks are often forced to do hideous things to the code for the wrong reasons - for marketing purposes, to subvert desirable standards, to present a moving target to prevent cloning, for backward compatibility with decade old hardware and software... If Microsoft programmers were allowed to write the best software they could - period - without worrying about screwing the competition or subverting existing standards, they would have some of the best apps and OSes in the world. But they don't, because Marketing and Management have fsck'ed up their programmers with many often conflicting requirements. This isn't just a programmer dilemma, btw. Those of you following the trial will probably notice how often, and how badly, Microsoft's execs lied during the trial. They repeatedly shot themselves in the collective foot (partially)by trying to cover too many bases. Dislike Microsoft as a corporation if you wish - I certainly do - dislike specific Microsoft executives if you wish, but don't slag Microsoft programmers as a group. They're no less competent and no more evil than any other group of programmers.
The rift is actually a disguised gas nebula. My guess, for what it is worth, is that the German Linux group has a member who is a lawyer (or who is close friends with a lawyer). In law, as in many other human (and cat) activities, you sometimes have to make yourself look big to scare off the bad guys. Some lizards raise spines on their backs, cats arch their backs, and people wave lawyers around. Sometimes that's all it takes if the opponent is a cowardly opportunist...
Money will keep Microsoft from coming out with MS Linux. Operating systems have been Microsoft's cash cow for nearly two decades. Microsoft is used to having that incredibly rich stream of income. They won't do anything to hurt that cash flow.
Linux has already hurt Microsoft in the pocketbook - to the tune of millions, perhaps billions of dollars (remember the decision the Mexican educational system made to go with Linux instead of MS products)?
If Microsoft introduced MS-Linux they would be supporting the competition. Every ten free downloads of MSLinux would represent a loss of X sales of Microsoft 98/2K/whatever. MSLinux would have to be very cheap to sell in any significant numbers. A purchase of a $50 copy of MSLinux might lose Microsoft a sale of a $10000 copy (with Cals, etc...) of WIN2000.
MSLinux would also help "legit" Linux in a big way. Big businesses who fear to buy non-Microsoft-blessed software would rush to MSLinux (and away from Windows) in droves. Linux would finally have that penetration into the fortune 500 market! B-)
Now wouldn't that be ironic?
To add insult to injury MSLinux might mean Microsoft would probably have to contribute source code, which would (arguably...) make Linux more competitive with Windows.
There's also the expert factor. Expert Linux users are likely to be ABMer's. When an expert Linux user makes a recommendation to a business customer, will s/he recommend MSLinux unless it was dramatically superior to all the alternatives?
Microsoft *BSD is marginally more likely. *BSD hasn't taken off like Linux and will therefore be much easier to co-opt. However, there is still the money issue - every sale of Microsoft BSD will probably represent a lost sale of a much more expensive Windows product.
Slashdot Mirror
Altogether, this is just business as usual for Microsoft...
<<<SNIP>>>
We have seen exactly the same thing with PocketPC/WindowsCE, and they just don't seem to learn.
I agree with your post on everything but the last
bit. It isn't Microsoft that's unable to learn - they've very effectively learned that these techniques *work*. That's why they do it over and
over again.
Will it work this time? I hope not. Time will tell.
I found the following question most interesting:
... and wants to take two or three minutes from a DVD from Schindler's List to put into that Holocaust presentation and she has to de-encrypt the DVD to do that, is that illegal?" asked 2600 attorney Martin Garbus.
"If a student wants to do a term paper, let's say do a video presentation on the Holocaust
Valenti ducked the question. "The student could do that by getting an analog version of Schindler's List, because that's not encrypted," he said."
One of the arguments defending DeCSS is that pirating movies is currently impractical due to the huge size of the files involved. The MPAA argued (IIRC) that technology will change all that.
Fair enough. They're extrapolating into a possible (likely)future.
I think we can do the same. I'll bet that in the years to come it won't be possible to obtain an analog recording (VHS, Laservision, whatever)
of a movie made, say, 8 years from now.
I checked out the web site, and saw references to multicasting. I've heard of it before, but I know virtually nothing about it. Can some kindly soul provide me with information or useful thinks.
Thankyaverramuchinadvance
There *are* other corporations, American and otherwise, that do far more morally reprehensible things than Microsoft.
I regret that this may come as a shock to some people here.
There may actually be other companies out there which are disliked more, and by more people.
Mea culpa, I guess. If I hadn't gone off-topic with my post about Microsoft programmers we wouldn't be fighting over just how evil Microsoft really is.
I'll back away from ethical issues here and focus
on what I consider my major (and least offtopic) point: Never underestimate the abilities of Microsoft's R&D people. They are, as individuals, a match for open source people.
The difference - the thing that makes open source people all dewy-eyed - is the great potential in writing the best software you possibly can without worrying about controlling a market or trying to fsck up as many competitors as you can.
This is a misconception that is unfair to the individuals who work as programmers at Microsoft. It also may cause many free software advocates to underestimate Microsoft's programming abilities. Microsoft has some excellent programmers - even the WinCE team must have some first rate people. The problem is that these folks are often forced to do hideous things to the code for the wrong reasons - for marketing purposes, to subvert desirable standards, to present a moving target to prevent cloning, for backward compatibility with decade old hardware and software... If Microsoft programmers were allowed to write the best software they could - period - without worrying about screwing the competition or subverting existing standards, they would have some of the best apps and OSes in the world. But they don't, because Marketing and Management have fsck'ed up their programmers with many often conflicting requirements. This isn't just a programmer dilemma, btw. Those of you following the trial will probably notice how often, and how badly, Microsoft's execs lied during the trial. They repeatedly shot themselves in the collective foot (partially)by trying to cover too many bases. Dislike Microsoft as a corporation if you wish - I certainly do - dislike specific Microsoft executives if you wish, but don't slag Microsoft programmers as a group. They're no less competent and no more evil than any other group of programmers.
The rift is actually a disguised gas nebula.
My guess, for what it is worth, is that the
German Linux group has a member who is a lawyer
(or who is close friends with a lawyer).
In law, as in many other human (and cat) activities, you sometimes have to make yourself
look big to scare off the bad guys. Some lizards
raise spines on their backs, cats arch their backs, and people wave lawyers around. Sometimes
that's all it takes if the opponent is a cowardly
opportunist...
Money will keep Microsoft from coming out with MS Linux. Operating systems have been Microsoft's cash cow for nearly two decades. Microsoft is used to having that incredibly rich stream of income. They won't do anything to hurt that cash
flow.
Linux has already hurt Microsoft in the pocketbook - to the tune of millions, perhaps billions of dollars (remember the decision the Mexican educational system made to go with Linux instead of MS products)?
If Microsoft introduced MS-Linux they would be supporting the competition. Every ten free downloads of MSLinux would represent a loss of X sales of Microsoft 98/2K/whatever. MSLinux would have to be very cheap to sell in any significant numbers. A purchase of a $50 copy of MSLinux might lose Microsoft a sale of a $10000 copy (with Cals, etc...) of WIN2000.
MSLinux would also help "legit" Linux in a big way. Big businesses who fear to buy non-Microsoft-blessed software would rush to MSLinux (and away from Windows) in droves.
Linux would finally have that penetration into
the fortune 500 market! B-)
Now wouldn't that be ironic?
To add insult to injury MSLinux might mean Microsoft would probably have to contribute source code, which would (arguably...)
make Linux more competitive with Windows.
There's also the expert factor. Expert Linux users are likely to be ABMer's. When an expert Linux user makes a recommendation to a business customer, will s/he recommend MSLinux unless it was dramatically superior to all the alternatives?
Microsoft *BSD is marginally more likely. *BSD hasn't taken off like Linux and will therefore be much easier to co-opt. However, there is still the money issue - every sale of Microsoft BSD will probably represent a lost sale of a much more expensive Windows product.
I'm an ABM'er and I'm proud.