Who does it hurt if people want to purchase (rent) a mutilated copy of a movie to watch?
Apparently you're not an artist. You answered the question in your own question. Who wants to make art that gets mutilated and resold - and it still has your name on it. Even with a disclaimer I'd never allow someone to remix and resell my music unless I approved of it. This isn't just my contention, it's copyright law.
This isn't about protecting consumer rights. Consumers have all the rights in the world to mutilate the art in which they've purchased - as well as buy products that allow them to do so. This is about the rights of a business to profit off of said mutilated works, and copyright law does not give the business these rights.
If you really feel that watching a movie the way you perfer it even though it differs from the original presentation is wrong, well, listening to a CD outside of it's original presentation on the CD is wrong, too.
That's not the issue. I can remix a CD all I want and make it sound really funky - heck I do that all the time. That's fair use. The difference is, I can't open up a website selling my remixed versions - even if I buy a copy of each CD that I resell. The problem is that I'm selling someone elses art that I've modified. ClearFlicks is a difficult issue because in one sense you can argue that they're just providing a service to do the editing for you, which is fully within the fair use rights of a customer. However, I have a hard time buying that argument when essentially you walk into the store and buy the product - you aren't hiring someone to do the editing for you. Again, I believe in protecting consumer rights - I have a small recording studio and I modify my CD's and Movies all the time to create cool mixes or different movie edits etc. I have the right to do that as a consumer. But as a Business I do not.
But Darwin, but commodity, is. Unreal2003, or the engine, is free. Doom3 is not free. Why do we expect OSX to be free? This is absolutely rediclous. Again, I understand how something like Darwin makes sense being Open Source, but Apple puts millions of dollars into OSX - why should they give it away for free. This isn't Old Russia.
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to come off as a troll. Also, I wasn't trying to say that YOU were blaming the MS monopoly, I was just adding to your comments about how Palm sucks. Sorry for the confusion!
P.S. Although I used to think that PPC's were horrendous I changed my mind when I saw my friends Toshiba with Pocket PC 2002. The task bar really isn't as bad as you say. Although the price/performance ratio is not worth it for me personally, the next generation PPC's will probably be good enough for me to finally upgrade from my Palm 3xe.
If someone makes claims for supernatural phenomenon, I can call bullshit pretty much immediately.
Absoultely wrong. If someone makes ANY claim, "supernatural" or not, I'll agree that they have to back up that claim. Conversely, if YOU are making a claim that something is BS, you need to back up that claim.
By claiming that the Bible is not accurate, you have to have some proof that it is not accurate. Conversly, if I claim that the Bible IS accurate, I also need proof. Either side is making the claims.
Many times in history science was ignored because many held your philosphy. For example, people thought Columbus was crazy when he said that the world was round. Sure, the burdon of proof was on Columbus to go proove it, but anyone yelling BS needed to back up WHY. The point is not that they are yelling BS, but that they are making a claim themselves - that the world is flat. After many years Queen Isabella finally let him attempt to prove his theory. However science was held up for years due to the arrogance of the scientists who "KNEW" so much about life and our earth, and who thought such claims were rediculous.
My point is, if the Bible is BS, then you are claiming that it's a bunch of stories written by people who were bored (for example). That claim then needs to be proven. The Bible has been around for many years and has transcended many cultures. It has proven historical references that have been accepted by historians (secular or otherwise). Although none of this proves that everything in the Bible is True, it's such a strong and widely accepted text that it's incredibly rediculous to compare it to the likes of elves. You can't "feel" that the Bible is BS, you need to know why. Otherwise your just as bad as a fundamentalist.
What's interesting - and maybe this is because of my obvious bias - is that the Hindu myth doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever (sidenote: I used to work with a Hindu). It sounds like a creative made up story. I know that although I percieve the Bible to be True, many view the Creation story as I view Hindu's.
I agree. However, the burden of proof is equally yours if you claim that it's all BS - you have to have proof as to why you think it's BS. Simply stating that it's BS is counterproductive and contributes nothing to the discussion at hand.
Great point. As a creationist I can't agree with you more. Although I hold firm my belief based on facts, I'm regularly amazed at the "science" being taught in churches and Christian schools.
And why does it matter anyway?.NET (and multiple CLR's) and a plethora of JVM's run side by side. If an app was coded in Java, it'll use a JVM, and likewise for.NET. I too fail to see the big deal.
Then why not take down the actual sites that host this crap? The entire concept of blocking things on the backbone level is flawed, and can lead to huge infringements on our rights - rights that people have died for. Also remember that America's definition of Child pornography is different then that of other countries. It also covers teens. Although I agree with America's values (18 the age of consent), how can we force the world to subscribe to OUR values? So what if France thinks it should be 16 or 17? I can argue that it's wrong, but I don't have the right to shut them down. If you're offended by it don't go to the site.
Ya, but then the DBA's would have had to actually code against PostgreSQL. The decreased moral would've lowered productivity and therefore increased the TCO.:-)
The point he was trying to make was that the decision is not based on finances at this point. The performance AND cost difference is inconclusive because they are different configurations. If one completely blew the other out of the water, we could maybe claim a winner, but that simply didn't happen.
And the difference between the two system costs from an OS licence standpoint is far less (see the full report). To correct your analogy:
$20000 dealer A $19900 dealer B
It's not based on money the initial purchase. It's based on the TCO, how it will integrate with your existing infrastructure, and whethor or not you prefer one of the other (for a variety of reasons).
No, if you read the report the cost of Windows adds about $14K more - and part of that is for the 8 additional client licenses since they tested the Windows system against 24 clients intead of the 16 used against Linux. You have to also consider the fact that the cost of hardware goes down over time, and that the Windows system was built 3.5 months before the Linux system - this can easily make up for the $150K, and then some.
Finally, it's not about the softare cost - it's about the bottom line: price/performance. These reports can't really be scientifically compared. One can speculate that Windows would have beat the price/performance ratio of the Linux system given an even playing field, but it's just that - speculation. The real point here is that Linux is _competing_ in the enterprise and has been taken seriously enough to actually get benchmarked.
This is a good point. I'd like to add that the Windows test was done 3.5 months earlier, and that the cost was based on the Total System. We all know how quickly prices drop for hardware. Given the very small cost difference between the Windows setup and Linux setup this fact alone could put them on equal financial ground.
Yes, the OEM copy of Windows is currently around $89 for Windows, however, Dell and other large OEM's get a significantly cheaper package due to their high volumes.
You make some good points, but I never asserted that it was "a little unsafe" like Red Bull for example. I'm saying that it may be much more dangerous then a lot of us would like to believe. Jail has nothing to do with what's best for the criminal, it has to do with punishment for a crime. If we believe that the trafficking of a substance is dangerous, we want to deter that crime with a serious punishment. If pot is not this substance, then ya, it's kind of rediculous and we should change the laws. I just personally haven't made up my mind yet.
Linux is very quickly becoming ready for Joe (or Jane) User.
I still don't understand how ANYONE on/. is qualified to make this assertion. Our perspective is incredibly skewed because of our expertise. Sure, every "Linux on the Desktop" article comes with posts about peoples moms, wifes, grandpa's using Linux just fine, accept not everyone has a relative that can install and support them on it either.
However, they do care about buying the same PC for $100 less.
Not really, because you do get a lot less. First point, by most counts, Windows OEM (aka the Microsoft tax) is nowhere near $100. I've heard that the Windows+"Office Home" (or Works or whatever new name they have for it tomorrow) costs anywhere from $115-$150 per box for OEM's - so THERE you have a point IF they're getting a good office productivity package as well. However, you can also get Open Office for Windows as well so this doesn't give a one up on Linux.
Finally, I still think it won't take long for companies like Sun to stop putting money into applications that no one is paying for.
Ya, pot just makes you stupid after a while. I know it's only anecdotal, but all of my friends who somewhat regulary smoke pot respond slower to dialog. There is also reasonable amount of science backing this up of you google for it. Sure, I don't buy the Pot==Heroin bit, but I'm still not convinced that it's a safe enough substance for public trade and consumption.
So it's okay to have aggressive practices until you are ruled a monopoly? So, go ahead and use MS tactics - just slow down when you approach 80% of the marketshare. MS wasn't always a monopoly either, you know.
Now THIS is a voice of reason. I've used Hungarian in VBScript, Cold Fusion, etc. and it's probably the best of all evil notations. However, it is still evil, and I've stayed away from it for Java and C# apps, as it just makes your code harder to read.
You do have the choice - to vote with your dollars. If the RIAA releases crap with DRM, I most likely won't buy it. When Astralwerks or some other cool label releases stuff, I highly doubt that they'll go towards DRM, and i'll still be able to purchase and listen to their music in any format that I want. Finally - and the biggest point - is that palladium is NOT going to interfere with my ability to listen to my current MP3 [legit] collection, even though it's not "secure". I will also be able to create "insecure" MP3's or WMA's for the use with my MP3 hardware that doesn't support DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Who does it hurt if people want to purchase (rent) a mutilated copy of a movie to watch?
Apparently you're not an artist. You answered the question in your own question. Who wants to make art that gets mutilated and resold - and it still has your name on it. Even with a disclaimer I'd never allow someone to remix and resell my music unless I approved of it. This isn't just my contention, it's copyright law.
This isn't about protecting consumer rights. Consumers have all the rights in the world to mutilate the art in which they've purchased - as well as buy products that allow them to do so. This is about the rights of a business to profit off of said mutilated works, and copyright law does not give the business these rights.
If you really feel that watching a movie the way you perfer it even though it differs from the original presentation is wrong, well, listening to a CD outside of it's original presentation on the CD is wrong, too.
That's not the issue. I can remix a CD all I want and make it sound really funky - heck I do that all the time. That's fair use. The difference is, I can't open up a website selling my remixed versions - even if I buy a copy of each CD that I resell. The problem is that I'm selling someone elses art that I've modified. ClearFlicks is a difficult issue because in one sense you can argue that they're just providing a service to do the editing for you, which is fully within the fair use rights of a customer. However, I have a hard time buying that argument when essentially you walk into the store and buy the product - you aren't hiring someone to do the editing for you. Again, I believe in protecting consumer rights - I have a small recording studio and I modify my CD's and Movies all the time to create cool mixes or different movie edits etc. I have the right to do that as a consumer. But as a Business I do not.
OSX is not free.
But Darwin, but commodity, is. Unreal2003, or the engine, is free. Doom3 is not free. Why do we expect OSX to be free? This is absolutely rediclous. Again, I understand how something like Darwin makes sense being Open Source, but Apple puts millions of dollars into OSX - why should they give it away for free. This isn't Old Russia.
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to come off as a troll. Also, I wasn't trying to say that YOU were blaming the MS monopoly, I was just adding to your comments about how Palm sucks. Sorry for the confusion!
P.S. Although I used to think that PPC's were horrendous I changed my mind when I saw my friends Toshiba with Pocket PC 2002. The task bar really isn't as bad as you say. Although the price/performance ratio is not worth it for me personally, the next generation PPC's will probably be good enough for me to finally upgrade from my Palm 3xe.
If someone makes claims for supernatural phenomenon, I can call bullshit pretty much immediately.
Absoultely wrong. If someone makes ANY claim, "supernatural" or not, I'll agree that they have to back up that claim. Conversely, if YOU are making a claim that something is BS, you need to back up that claim.
By claiming that the Bible is not accurate, you have to have some proof that it is not accurate. Conversly, if I claim that the Bible IS accurate, I also need proof. Either side is making the claims.
Many times in history science was ignored because many held your philosphy. For example, people thought Columbus was crazy when he said that the world was round. Sure, the burdon of proof was on Columbus to go proove it, but anyone yelling BS needed to back up WHY. The point is not that they are yelling BS, but that they are making a claim themselves - that the world is flat. After many years Queen Isabella finally let him attempt to prove his theory. However science was held up for years due to the arrogance of the scientists who "KNEW" so much about life and our earth, and who thought such claims were rediculous.
My point is, if the Bible is BS, then you are claiming that it's a bunch of stories written by people who were bored (for example). That claim then needs to be proven. The Bible has been around for many years and has transcended many cultures. It has proven historical references that have been accepted by historians (secular or otherwise). Although none of this proves that everything in the Bible is True, it's such a strong and widely accepted text that it's incredibly rediculous to compare it to the likes of elves. You can't "feel" that the Bible is BS, you need to know why. Otherwise your just as bad as a fundamentalist.
What's interesting - and maybe this is because of my obvious bias - is that the Hindu myth doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever (sidenote: I used to work with a Hindu). It sounds like a creative made up story. I know that although I percieve the Bible to be True, many view the Creation story as I view Hindu's.
Of course, instead of admitting that the competition just plain sucked, most people throw up their hands and blaim MS's monopoly.
I agree. However, the burden of proof is equally yours if you claim that it's all BS - you have to have proof as to why you think it's BS. Simply stating that it's BS is counterproductive and contributes nothing to the discussion at hand.
Great point. As a creationist I can't agree with you more. Although I hold firm my belief based on facts, I'm regularly amazed at the "science" being taught in churches and Christian schools.
If you're going to make such strong claims please at least back them up with something more then snide remarks.
And why does it matter anyway? .NET (and multiple CLR's) and a plethora of JVM's run side by side. If an app was coded in Java, it'll use a JVM, and likewise for .NET. I too fail to see the big deal.
Then why not take down the actual sites that host this crap? The entire concept of blocking things on the backbone level is flawed, and can lead to huge infringements on our rights - rights that people have died for. Also remember that America's definition of Child pornography is different then that of other countries. It also covers teens. Although I agree with America's values (18 the age of consent), how can we force the world to subscribe to OUR values? So what if France thinks it should be 16 or 17? I can argue that it's wrong, but I don't have the right to shut them down. If you're offended by it don't go to the site.
This is a GREAT conspiracy theory. No facts, but great! Bravo.
Ya, but then the DBA's would have had to actually code against PostgreSQL. The decreased moral would've lowered productivity and therefore increased the TCO. :-)
The point he was trying to make was that the decision is not based on finances at this point. The performance AND cost difference is inconclusive because they are different configurations. If one completely blew the other out of the water, we could maybe claim a winner, but that simply didn't happen.
And the difference between the two system costs from an OS licence standpoint is far less (see the full report). To correct your analogy:
$20000 dealer A
$19900 dealer B
It's not based on money the initial purchase. It's based on the TCO, how it will integrate with your existing infrastructure, and whethor or not you prefer one of the other (for a variety of reasons).
No, if you read the report the cost of Windows adds about $14K more - and part of that is for the 8 additional client licenses since they tested the Windows system against 24 clients intead of the 16 used against Linux. You have to also consider the fact that the cost of hardware goes down over time, and that the Windows system was built 3.5 months before the Linux system - this can easily make up for the $150K, and then some.
Finally, it's not about the softare cost - it's about the bottom line: price/performance. These reports can't really be scientifically compared. One can speculate that Windows would have beat the price/performance ratio of the Linux system given an even playing field, but it's just that - speculation. The real point here is that Linux is _competing_ in the enterprise and has been taken seriously enough to actually get benchmarked.
This is a good point. I'd like to add that the Windows test was done 3.5 months earlier, and that the cost was based on the Total System. We all know how quickly prices drop for hardware. Given the very small cost difference between the Windows setup and Linux setup this fact alone could put them on equal financial ground.
SMALLER white box builders != the vast majority of consumers who don't have technical competance. Compare it with Dell, Gateway, Compaq, etc.
Yes, the OEM copy of Windows is currently around $89 for Windows, however, Dell and other large OEM's get a significantly cheaper package due to their high volumes.
You make some good points, but I never asserted that it was "a little unsafe" like Red Bull for example. I'm saying that it may be much more dangerous then a lot of us would like to believe. Jail has nothing to do with what's best for the criminal, it has to do with punishment for a crime. If we believe that the trafficking of a substance is dangerous, we want to deter that crime with a serious punishment. If pot is not this substance, then ya, it's kind of rediculous and we should change the laws. I just personally haven't made up my mind yet.
Linux is very quickly becoming ready for Joe (or Jane) User.
/. is qualified to make this assertion. Our perspective is incredibly skewed because of our expertise. Sure, every "Linux on the Desktop" article comes with posts about peoples moms, wifes, grandpa's using Linux just fine, accept not everyone has a relative that can install and support them on it either.
I still don't understand how ANYONE on
However, they do care about buying the same PC for $100 less.
Not really, because you do get a lot less. First point, by most counts, Windows OEM (aka the Microsoft tax) is nowhere near $100. I've heard that the Windows+"Office Home" (or Works or whatever new name they have for it tomorrow) costs anywhere from $115-$150 per box for OEM's - so THERE you have a point IF they're getting a good office productivity package as well. However, you can also get Open Office for Windows as well so this doesn't give a one up on Linux.
Finally, I still think it won't take long for companies like Sun to stop putting money into applications that no one is paying for.
Ya, pot just makes you stupid after a while. I know it's only anecdotal, but all of my friends who somewhat regulary smoke pot respond slower to dialog. There is also reasonable amount of science backing this up of you google for it. Sure, I don't buy the Pot==Heroin bit, but I'm still not convinced that it's a safe enough substance for public trade and consumption.
So it's okay to have aggressive practices until you are ruled a monopoly? So, go ahead and use MS tactics - just slow down when you approach 80% of the marketshare. MS wasn't always a monopoly either, you know.
Now THIS is a voice of reason. I've used Hungarian in VBScript, Cold Fusion, etc. and it's probably the best of all evil notations. However, it is still evil, and I've stayed away from it for Java and C# apps, as it just makes your code harder to read.
You do have the choice - to vote with your dollars. If the RIAA releases crap with DRM, I most likely won't buy it. When Astralwerks or some other cool label releases stuff, I highly doubt that they'll go towards DRM, and i'll still be able to purchase and listen to their music in any format that I want. Finally - and the biggest point - is that palladium is NOT going to interfere with my ability to listen to my current MP3 [legit] collection, even though it's not "secure". I will also be able to create "insecure" MP3's or WMA's for the use with my MP3 hardware that doesn't support DRM.