Sure, one can go to the library and get reams of information, but it's not sorted, as if I had typed in a search request to a popular search engine.
You're kidding, right? Have you ever been to a library? They are insanely sorted. They make Google look like a haphazard mess by comparison. I have to admit that the Library of Congress classification system doesn't get me excited the way the Dewey Decimal system does, but card catalogs and decent shelving habits never prevented me from finding stuff I was looking for at my library when I was a kid, a teen, in college, or at any other time. Not only that, any library has a human guide who is an expert on finding stuff using their sorting system. Imagine a Google where you could IM a search engine/WWW expert to help you find the site you're looking for!
,br>
To me the big changes have not been the amount or quality of the information, but the convenience. Libraries are often closed in the evenings or on weekends. The internet is not. And maybe I can get what I need from a big central library downtown or on campus, but the internet is right there on my desk.
Doesn't iChat have a transcript function? Isn't Mac OS X a Unix that has the ability to run a cron daemon (with the ability to send an email as part of a cron job)? Of course, if iChat were Free Software, you could add a function to the Quit or Close Window subroutines that sent transcripts of any sessions in the chat log folder to a specified user.
Now what I'd like is a web proxy that saves all of my submitted form information, so that I have local copies of things like Slashdot posts without having to copy and paste them in or out of the browser (for example)... kind of like how most email clients save a copy of my sent mail.
Saying Operating System ZZZ is "better" than OS ABC is way too subjective and really makes too many unspoken assumptions to be a useful (or even universally true) statement. Both MS Windows and Mac OS X suck at running my old C-64, for instance. They're also complete duds when it comes to powering my PlayStation. Mac OS X doesn't run on any of my x86 processor systems, and Windows doesn't run on PPC (except with an emulator). Neither one runs on my Palm Pilot either. An OS is just that: an interface between the software and the machine. It's only real purpose is to expose the devices to applications through a combination of the OS kernel and lower level utilities.
So the question remains: which is better? And the only proper answer is another question: for what?
Considering anime is on TV in Japan for free, I'd say $30 for a 4-6 episode DVD here in the states seems unreasonable. After all, fansubbers seem to be able to do a reasonable job of translating, subtitling, and encoding the episodes just days after they're on TV in Japan. So why does it take years sometimes for the stuff to go stateside and cost so dang much? Who knows. Just be thankful we're not buying the original Japanese DVDs. Both CDs and DVDs from there are much more expensive than they are here.
My only real price complaint would be manga. I got the entire 8 book "Chobits" set from amazon.co.jp (shipped in less than a couple of weeks) for less than I could buy the translated version here at Barnes & Noble or Borders (of course now I've got to learn to read Japanese;) ). I understand we've got a much smaller market here, but US prices seem out of line for manga.
Just because someone writes an application that runs on Linux doesn't mean that they have to provide source.
And I never said that was why they would have to distribute source code to anything but the GPL software itself. If they are selling machines with GPL software on them, I don't see why they would be any less responsible for sharing the source code to the GPL software than anyone else who did so. If you can point out where the GPL allows this in their case or the expressed opinion of someone like Richard Stallman or Bradley Kuhn to support this, then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
You're going to saddle them with a $0.20 CD/ROM/sleeve extra cost per unit so they can use 'free software'?
Hmmm. So on that basis, if I'm a struggling software startup, I could plead that providing source code to GPL software is too much of a burden, even though I've based my products on Free Software? I'm not buying it.
Free Software isn't about getting free stuff (in this case, providing an inexpensive non-MS operating system option for embedded processors), it's about freedom for users. If I buy a Ford that has computers in it (as far as I know, my last-owned car, a Chevy Nova, did not have any computers on board other than my laptop or Palm Pilot), I should have the right to examine the code used, just as I'd have the right to understand how the spark plugs or drive train worked. That's what the GPL is intended to protect.
In fact, they purposefully do *not* want you thinking about anything except the car, appliance, etc. as a whole
I don't care what they want. If they are going to put computers in their products and use GPLed software on those computers, they could easily include a quick blurb in the owner's manual offering the source code to the software. That's not that hard to do. Then if anyone does write in to request the source code they can provide it. Arguing thin margins is a laugh. Look at how much money they just saved by not having to license that software in the first place, now you're going to quibble over the extremely low-cost tradeoff the programmer's asked for?
Let's see. First, if Ford is selling computers in cars, they are still selling computers. And if those computers contain software, then Ford is a software distributor. Second, you're telling me that in all the legal mess it takes to build cars, that it's too much of a hassle for Ford to post the source code to their embedded processors' software? They could conceivably put that code on a CD-ROM and put that in a pocket of your car's owners manual. This is not rocket science-- but it is a simple thing to do as part of the automotive engineering process.
They could also easily post said source code to their web servers. Have you ever seen their web site? They are insanely well-done. They're a combination of your wildest tech fantasies about online shopping and the most over-produced TV commercials known to man.
But hey, I'm sure Ford can't handle it. Never mind safety testing, emissions regulations, and all that hard stuff! Have you rebooted a Ford lately?
I guess we should be grateful that in spite of their insistence that Microsoft Windows constitutes a worthwhile computing environment that "PC" users are not stupid enough to believe the three canards you just threw out. There are many good reasons to choose Apple over Wintel, but you listed not a one of them. And your supposition that Apple would lower its prices if it had a higher market share is... naive, at best. It assumes a benevolence not proven by facts and-- more importantly-- has no basis in economic theory.
But thanks for playing the Windows vs. Mac troll game. Here is your shiny metal "False Dichotomy" award. Have a nice day.:)
That's not entrapment. Look it up. People: the WWW has all these handy reference tools to help you get a clear understanding of these issues, so could you take two seconds and take advantage of the huge wealth of knowledge that is out there?
Just to make clear, I don't disagree at all with your conclusion, that freely available downloads mostly constitute excellent (free) advertising. In fact, I'm guessing that if the members of the MPAA (and the RIAA) were to flood the P2P/BT and other online distribution vehicles with just barely acceptable quality copies of their works that they would effectively drown out the "piracy" and be even more effective in generating both ticket sales and media sales. Heck. They could put 15 ads in the movie every 15 minutes and most of us wouldn't care. We'd accept that as the "price" of getting a free copy. But the numbers are HUGE, so they probably feel like that's gambling with some awfully big chips and are understandably reluctant.
The data to which you linked does not bear out your assertion that downloads are increasing their profits. They appear to have averaged about 5-7% revenue growth every year since 1980. The gains in the last few years are unremarkable. Their worst year was 1985, when revenue grosses dropped over 7%. Their best year was 1982 when ticket grosses were up over 16%.
The data you are showing is relative to ticket sales in theaters, where DeCSS is a non-issue. DeCSS affects the sale of VHS and DVD products by diluting the market for those goods with "pirate" copies that are either free or cheap.
The average cost to make a movie has risen from under $10mm in 1980 to almost $60mm in 2002. Meanwhile, the per film ticket gross has gone from about $10mm in 1980 to $20mm in 2002. This means that in the early 80s a movie was expected to break-even at the box office. It is clear that in 2003, most movies are not expected to break even from their theater run and that, in fact, the majority of the revenues must come from elsewhere-- probably from things like VHS sales, DVD sales, and licensing rights.
Just using the numbers you linked to, the movie makers are actually losing more money than ever. So I suggest not using these numbers in any rational debate about the subject at hand.
DeCSS is not just about copyright infringement. Allowing the MPAA to frame the debate this way is surely going to help them win. DeCSS is about Fair Use, free speech, and the public domain. DeCSS is not necessary for copyright infringement, since duplicating the contents of a DVD does not require cracking anything. The keys are right there on the DVD when you buy. If you just copy the whole disc, the player has no way to know if it's a legitimate DVD or a copy. Furthermore, no amount of DeCSS would have kept the various copies of the "Matrix Reloaded" from showing up on Kazaa or as BitTorrents, since they were not ripped from purchased DVDs (or so I hear).
Good god, shut up! First of all, the level of security flaws found is generally the same. The problem with the bugs/holes found in MS' software are often much more severe or easily exploited. The problem is that no thought was given to security at any point in the process. I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to write an email program that automatically opens an email from an unknown/untrusted source, finds a "script" therein, and runs it... all without any sort of action on the part of the user, who doesn't even have to "open" the email thanks to the preview feature?
Second, I don't think anyone likes Larry Ellison any more than they like Bill Gates. At least Bill Gates still seems like a bit of a nerd. Larry Ellison, OTOH, is an arrogant rich a-hole.
Third, if MS had any sort of real security, it wouldn't matter how much black hats and script kiddies hated them... in fact, you'd think the black hats and kiddies would be big fans. People looking to exploit systems are looking for easy targets... How can they not see MS software as a giant bullseye? It's everywhere, so any crack is likely to be massively successful in terms of exposure... and it's like swiss cheese, so why work your tail off trying to get into some ubersecure VMS mainframe when you can impress your buddies by tweaking the output of an Outlook Virus Construction kit or exploiting some other brain dead "feature" in an MS product?
Oh shoot. I just fell for some pro-MS troll didn't I?
Well, the best part is that copyright infringement is not burglary. It's copyright infringement. That's why there are separate laws to cover each kind of offense.:)
Actually I don't think the masses would even know what you were talking about if you started talking about DeCSS. Hell, half of the masses don't even have the internet at home. A great number of them don't have a computer either. And while DVDs are taking off, I doubt very many folks are going to be able to discuss this past "well, if you want to watch DVDs, why don't you just buy a DVD player, they're like $100 at Target?" Besides, the masses aren't going to be the ones making this decision in the courts. And in this case, we're lucky, judges, by their very nature have far more education and access to the funds to buy computer stuff than the average American, and are therefore, more likely to be able to understand what DeCSS is all about.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing most of these same judges have themselves or had one of their children download Kazaa, and therefore they've seen that the primary use of P2P seems to be copyright infringement... and then to top that off, they're going to link things like DeCSS as a necessary first-step in that infringement chain. The real question is: can the pro-DeCSS lawyers overcome this impression?
Hmmm. Too bad Sundman didn't put up some excerpts from "Cheap Complex Devices". In any case, looks like he's got a severe case of "Illuminati Envy". I'll have to see if they carry this book at Borders.:)
If you really don't know the answer to that question, then you should probably do a little more light reading and little less commenting on Slashdot. Just a thought.:)
Or perhaps it was so they could finally stick it to Pakistan. A country of a billion souls does not need to worry about being "invaded" by the U.S., but it does need to worry that it will lose ground in perennial conflicts with its neighbors.
You can think that all you want, but you'd still be full of it. To me this sounds more like anti-GPL trolling than anything else. BSD is under a BSD license-- indeed there are three main "flavors" to choose from. So why is it that companies like Suse, Red Hat, IBM, and others are all looking at using GPLed Linux? You'd think at least IBM would be smarter than that.
Actually it looks like you're not guilty of infringement (under USC Title 17, Section 506(a)(2)) until you have reproduced and distributed works with a retail value of $1000 or more within a 180 day window (non-commercial only, commercial distribution has no monetary minimum before it is considered infringement). IANAL, of course.
And it's not "stealing". It's "copyright infringement". If I were stealing music, I'd be going into Best Buy and taking the CDs without paying, which is a much different act than making a copy and giving or selling it to someone else.
So what I'm waiting for is the SEC investigation and jailtime for SCO execs when it becomes clear that they've way overstepped their bounds on this, going from a simple contract issue with IBM to taking on the entire Linux community. Not only did this artificially inflate their share price, but it caused a lot of damage in the meantime.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, one can go to the library and get reams of information, but it's not sorted, as if I had typed in a search request to a popular search engine.
You're kidding, right? Have you ever been to a library? They are insanely sorted. They make Google look like a haphazard mess by comparison. I have to admit that the Library of Congress classification system doesn't get me excited the way the Dewey Decimal system does, but card catalogs and decent shelving habits never prevented me from finding stuff I was looking for at my library when I was a kid, a teen, in college, or at any other time. Not only that, any library has a human guide who is an expert on finding stuff using their sorting system. Imagine a Google where you could IM a search engine/WWW expert to help you find the site you're looking for!
,br> To me the big changes have not been the amount or quality of the information, but the convenience. Libraries are often closed in the evenings or on weekends. The internet is not. And maybe I can get what I need from a big central library downtown or on campus, but the internet is right there on my desk.
Doesn't iChat have a transcript function? Isn't Mac OS X a Unix that has the ability to run a cron daemon (with the ability to send an email as part of a cron job)? Of course, if iChat were Free Software, you could add a function to the Quit or Close Window subroutines that sent transcripts of any sessions in the chat log folder to a specified user.
Now what I'd like is a web proxy that saves all of my submitted form information, so that I have local copies of things like Slashdot posts without having to copy and paste them in or out of the browser (for example)... kind of like how most email clients save a copy of my sent mail.
Saying Operating System ZZZ is "better" than OS ABC is way too subjective and really makes too many unspoken assumptions to be a useful (or even universally true) statement. Both MS Windows and Mac OS X suck at running my old C-64, for instance. They're also complete duds when it comes to powering my PlayStation. Mac OS X doesn't run on any of my x86 processor systems, and Windows doesn't run on PPC (except with an emulator). Neither one runs on my Palm Pilot either. An OS is just that: an interface between the software and the machine. It's only real purpose is to expose the devices to applications through a combination of the OS kernel and lower level utilities.
So the question remains: which is better? And the only proper answer is another question: for what?
Considering anime is on TV in Japan for free, I'd say $30 for a 4-6 episode DVD here in the states seems unreasonable. After all, fansubbers seem to be able to do a reasonable job of translating, subtitling, and encoding the episodes just days after they're on TV in Japan. So why does it take years sometimes for the stuff to go stateside and cost so dang much? Who knows. Just be thankful we're not buying the original Japanese DVDs. Both CDs and DVDs from there are much more expensive than they are here.
;) ). I understand we've got a much smaller market here, but US prices seem out of line for manga.
My only real price complaint would be manga. I got the entire 8 book "Chobits" set from amazon.co.jp (shipped in less than a couple of weeks) for less than I could buy the translated version here at Barnes & Noble or Borders (of course now I've got to learn to read Japanese
Or we could conclude that the FSF hasn't got anything to do with the Linux kernel and therefore can't possibly act as an enforcement agent for it.
Just because someone writes an application that runs on Linux doesn't mean that they have to provide source.
And I never said that was why they would have to distribute source code to anything but the GPL software itself. If they are selling machines with GPL software on them, I don't see why they would be any less responsible for sharing the source code to the GPL software than anyone else who did so. If you can point out where the GPL allows this in their case or the expressed opinion of someone like Richard Stallman or Bradley Kuhn to support this, then I'll gladly retract my assertion.
You're going to saddle them with a $0.20 CD/ROM/sleeve extra cost per unit so they can use 'free software'?
Hmmm. So on that basis, if I'm a struggling software startup, I could plead that providing source code to GPL software is too much of a burden, even though I've based my products on Free Software? I'm not buying it.
Free Software isn't about getting free stuff (in this case, providing an inexpensive non-MS operating system option for embedded processors), it's about freedom for users. If I buy a Ford that has computers in it (as far as I know, my last-owned car, a Chevy Nova, did not have any computers on board other than my laptop or Palm Pilot), I should have the right to examine the code used, just as I'd have the right to understand how the spark plugs or drive train worked. That's what the GPL is intended to protect.
In fact, they purposefully do *not* want you thinking about anything except the car, appliance, etc. as a whole
I don't care what they want. If they are going to put computers in their products and use GPLed software on those computers, they could easily include a quick blurb in the owner's manual offering the source code to the software. That's not that hard to do. Then if anyone does write in to request the source code they can provide it. Arguing thin margins is a laugh. Look at how much money they just saved by not having to license that software in the first place, now you're going to quibble over the extremely low-cost tradeoff the programmer's asked for?
Let's see. First, if Ford is selling computers in cars, they are still selling computers. And if those computers contain software, then Ford is a software distributor. Second, you're telling me that in all the legal mess it takes to build cars, that it's too much of a hassle for Ford to post the source code to their embedded processors' software? They could conceivably put that code on a CD-ROM and put that in a pocket of your car's owners manual. This is not rocket science-- but it is a simple thing to do as part of the automotive engineering process.
They could also easily post said source code to their web servers. Have you ever seen their web site? They are insanely well-done. They're a combination of your wildest tech fantasies about online shopping and the most over-produced TV commercials known to man.
But hey, I'm sure Ford can't handle it. Never mind safety testing, emissions regulations, and all that hard stuff! Have you rebooted a Ford lately?
I guess we should be grateful that in spite of their insistence that Microsoft Windows constitutes a worthwhile computing environment that "PC" users are not stupid enough to believe the three canards you just threw out. There are many good reasons to choose Apple over Wintel, but you listed not a one of them. And your supposition that Apple would lower its prices if it had a higher market share is... naive, at best. It assumes a benevolence not proven by facts and-- more importantly-- has no basis in economic theory.
:)
But thanks for playing the Windows vs. Mac troll game. Here is your shiny metal "False Dichotomy" award. Have a nice day.
That's not entrapment. Look it up. People: the WWW has all these handy reference tools to help you get a clear understanding of these issues, so could you take two seconds and take advantage of the huge wealth of knowledge that is out there?
Just to make clear, I don't disagree at all with your conclusion, that freely available downloads mostly constitute excellent (free) advertising. In fact, I'm guessing that if the members of the MPAA (and the RIAA) were to flood the P2P/BT and other online distribution vehicles with just barely acceptable quality copies of their works that they would effectively drown out the "piracy" and be even more effective in generating both ticket sales and media sales. Heck. They could put 15 ads in the movie every 15 minutes and most of us wouldn't care. We'd accept that as the "price" of getting a free copy. But the numbers are HUGE, so they probably feel like that's gambling with some awfully big chips and are understandably reluctant.
Good god, shut up! First of all, the level of security flaws found is generally the same. The problem with the bugs/holes found in MS' software are often much more severe or easily exploited. The problem is that no thought was given to security at any point in the process. I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to write an email program that automatically opens an email from an unknown/untrusted source, finds a "script" therein, and runs it... all without any sort of action on the part of the user, who doesn't even have to "open" the email thanks to the preview feature?
Second, I don't think anyone likes Larry Ellison any more than they like Bill Gates. At least Bill Gates still seems like a bit of a nerd. Larry Ellison, OTOH, is an arrogant rich a-hole.
Third, if MS had any sort of real security, it wouldn't matter how much black hats and script kiddies hated them... in fact, you'd think the black hats and kiddies would be big fans. People looking to exploit systems are looking for easy targets... How can they not see MS software as a giant bullseye? It's everywhere, so any crack is likely to be massively successful in terms of exposure... and it's like swiss cheese, so why work your tail off trying to get into some ubersecure VMS mainframe when you can impress your buddies by tweaking the output of an Outlook Virus Construction kit or exploiting some other brain dead "feature" in an MS product?
Oh shoot. I just fell for some pro-MS troll didn't I?
Where does the MPAA come up with this crap?
:)
Well, the best part is that copyright infringement is not burglary. It's copyright infringement. That's why there are separate laws to cover each kind of offense.
Actually I don't think the masses would even know what you were talking about if you started talking about DeCSS. Hell, half of the masses don't even have the internet at home. A great number of them don't have a computer either. And while DVDs are taking off, I doubt very many folks are going to be able to discuss this past "well, if you want to watch DVDs, why don't you just buy a DVD player, they're like $100 at Target?" Besides, the masses aren't going to be the ones making this decision in the courts. And in this case, we're lucky, judges, by their very nature have far more education and access to the funds to buy computer stuff than the average American, and are therefore, more likely to be able to understand what DeCSS is all about.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing most of these same judges have themselves or had one of their children download Kazaa, and therefore they've seen that the primary use of P2P seems to be copyright infringement... and then to top that off, they're going to link things like DeCSS as a necessary first-step in that infringement chain. The real question is: can the pro-DeCSS lawyers overcome this impression?
IANAL: both are liable.
B. S. D.
The fact that Ogg Vorbis has been out there since before iPod and they still don't support it?
Hmmm. Too bad Sundman didn't put up some excerpts from "Cheap Complex Devices". In any case, looks like he's got a severe case of "Illuminati Envy". I'll have to see if they carry this book at Borders. :)
can you copyright such a thing as a story?
:)
If you really don't know the answer to that question, then you should probably do a little more light reading and little less commenting on Slashdot. Just a thought.
Or perhaps it was so they could finally stick it to Pakistan. A country of a billion souls does not need to worry about being "invaded" by the U.S., but it does need to worry that it will lose ground in perennial conflicts with its neighbors.
Prove it with references to quotes from the USC and relevant case law or shut up. Thanks.
You can think that all you want, but you'd still be full of it. To me this sounds more like anti-GPL trolling than anything else. BSD is under a BSD license-- indeed there are three main "flavors" to choose from. So why is it that companies like Suse, Red Hat, IBM, and others are all looking at using GPLed Linux? You'd think at least IBM would be smarter than that.
Actually it looks like you're not guilty of infringement (under USC Title 17, Section 506(a)(2)) until you have reproduced and distributed works with a retail value of $1000 or more within a 180 day window (non-commercial only, commercial distribution has no monetary minimum before it is considered infringement). IANAL, of course.
And it's not "stealing". It's "copyright infringement". If I were stealing music, I'd be going into Best Buy and taking the CDs without paying, which is a much different act than making a copy and giving or selling it to someone else.
So what I'm waiting for is the SEC investigation and jailtime for SCO execs when it becomes clear that they've way overstepped their bounds on this, going from a simple contract issue with IBM to taking on the entire Linux community. Not only did this artificially inflate their share price, but it caused a lot of damage in the meantime.