MS? Not Anti-consumer? The same MS who threatened Toshiba if they shipped a BeOS box in the 90's? The same MS who wants 80 bucks for 802.11g on their gaming console(Much less any other feature that didn't come out of the box)? The same MS who decides once you install NT/XP/Vista/7 that your bootloader goes byebye? Was it Sony that released an OS that could be rootkitted by a music CD?
I could name a lot of evil corporations. A vendor for consumer and some professional grade equipment do not even come close. So what if they have their own format for Flash memory or heaven forbid the feature they don't advertise in the manual is going away. You want to talk about evil? Let's talk evil.
it was a feature that less than a percent of users had. It wasn't right, but it's not evil either. I don't blame Geohot for doing what he's doing and God bless him if he pulls CFW off.
Really? More evil than DeBeers, Walmart, Halliburton, Xe/Blackwater, GM, Whole Foods, Microsoft and Verizon(or $telco_here)?
Taking away Linux support is worse than blood diamonds, worker exploitation, war profiteering, building unsafe cars, soaking the general consumer, releasing Windows/IE/Microsoft BOB/SkiFree or whatever the hell telcos have done this week?
You're conflating what the law is, with opinions about what the law should be. Even if the law says one thing, people can still question what the law should be.
No doubt. But people are citing "consumer rights" which clearly do not exist in law. It's entitlement thinking that simply has no basis in reality.
We are not governed by your Spanish law, and producers do not have some legal given right of presentation.
I'm suggesting the Spanish system as a basis for future ideas concerning IP laws. Actually yes they do. If you rip BluRay or DVD discs, you're violating the law.
Even where it is a question of law, are you like this on every Slashdot story? E.g., there's a story about the DMCA, and you post 50 comments telling us that that's what the law is? Yes, we know what the law is - it's the law that we're complaining about.
No, because most people know what the fucking DMCA says. There are no rights granted to consumers to rip DVDs into more portable formats, and there are no rights for consumers to break DRM. Consumers simply do not have this right. They should, but they don't and they need to be reminded of it.
I'm suggesting things that aren't codified as "rights" aren't rights.
In fact, the courts have decided that format shifting is *not* fair use(A&M Records vs Napster, UMG vs. MP3.com) by the way and there's no law on the books saying that format shifting *is* a right. DRM is a right held by content producers. I suggest you do not purchase from those producers if you're so bothered by it.
This isn't about necessity, this is about legal reality. Producers of IP DO and still have RIGHTS themselves too. They over extend themselves, they do reprehensible acts to try to enforce those rights, but, never forget that rights with consumer goods go both ways. You have the right not to run DRM content and they have the right to put out DRMed content.
Under what law? In America, there's no such case law nor is there such laws on the books. I'm not sure what the case is in the UK, I found some articles talking about potentially codifying the right to format shift into law, but nothing about what happened with it.
So don't buy DRM content and if you're in the UK don't get a TV license until the BBC drops their DRM. Simple enough I'd say. Worked for music.
As a constituent in a political system, derive an argument that producer digital restrictions are harmful enough that you can campaign against your local politico and make it stick. These kinds of issues happen all the time. If it's really that bad, you can make it stick.
I support Spain's current IP system; you can redistribute all the IP you want, just don't try to make any god damned money off of it. Until that's the law of the land though, you have no *right* to be allowed to change presentation layers of digital media; particularly if it means circumventing encryption. I have no problems with people defying it in an act of civil disobedience, just never forget, that producers *do* and *should* have rights of distribution and presentation as the law stands now.
But you don't have that right. You may be given explicit permission to do so, but format shifting has by no means ever been defined as a "right."
The RIAA v. Rio case of 1999 specified that files that were already on your hard drive were free to be copied to other devices, not reconverted elsewhere for free use. DRM free media has no controls keeping you from doing whatever you want with it; from one device to another has been set into legal precedence, but one format to another has not.
I'm all for consumers rights here, but several things, until this is the law of the land, then there's no argument. There is no right for it. I advocate we change that; but also, I've noticed that when we make this our geeky political hot button issue, we're kind of ignoring the realities of the world around us. This is a first world, middle class problem. There are way more important things in life than DRM. GLBT discrimination for instance, racial profiling, health care, consumer rights(Yes, DRM included here; but consumer rights go way beyond just DRM and the DMCA), and the list goes on.
But will it suck more than stuff already approved for the Wii and DS? Lately, these platforms have picked up a reputation on Slashdot for harboring shovelware.
Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.
Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.
Slashdot Mirror
MS? Not Anti-consumer? The same MS who threatened Toshiba if they shipped a BeOS box in the 90's? The same MS who wants 80 bucks for 802.11g on their gaming console(Much less any other feature that didn't come out of the box)? The same MS who decides once you install NT/XP/Vista/7 that your bootloader goes byebye? Was it Sony that released an OS that could be rootkitted by a music CD?
I could name a lot of evil corporations. A vendor for consumer and some professional grade equipment do not even come close. So what if they have their own format for Flash memory or heaven forbid the feature they don't advertise in the manual is going away. You want to talk about evil? Let's talk evil.
it was a feature that less than a percent of users had. It wasn't right, but it's not evil either. I don't blame Geohot for doing what he's doing and God bless him if he pulls CFW off.
I just wanted to play Final Fantasy XIII. I don't know about you.
Really? More evil than DeBeers, Walmart, Halliburton, Xe/Blackwater, GM, Whole Foods, Microsoft and Verizon(or $telco_here)?
Taking away Linux support is worse than blood diamonds, worker exploitation, war profiteering, building unsafe cars, soaking the general consumer, releasing Windows/IE/Microsoft BOB/SkiFree or whatever the hell telcos have done this week?
Really? evil?
I dont' know if this is sarcastic or really uninformed.
http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackref/#43
The skinny of the review:
Placebos do bupkis for anything but low level pain. Unless you can't take aspirin or ibu profin, forget it.
No Sony Android phones?
You mean, like the Sony Ericsson Xperia X10?
I disagree that they're liable for disabling that feature. They have said that feature might go away in the manual and it's not advertised on the box.
Don't buy a PS3! It's that simple. I'd just love to see the lawsuit the parent post is threatening though.
Sure, because open systems are just wonderful for gaming. They never have driver or dependency problems or ... oh yeah, they do.
Under what law? Try to sue. I'd love to see this.
You had the choice not to upgrade the firmware.
Firmware release notes clearly show, "OtherOS is going bye bye."
I can't play Metal Gear Solid 4, Super SF 4, or Valkyria Chronicles on a PC built with ITX parts
Not that I doubt your experience - psychosomatic effects and placebos are very powerful things.
Psychosomatic? Yes.
Placebos? No.
No, it's going to have actual apps.
Time shifting but not format shifting.
Fair Use doesn't allow you to break DRM either, that's the domain of the DMCA.
You're conflating what the law is, with opinions about what the law should be. Even if the law says one thing, people can still question what the law should be.
No doubt. But people are citing "consumer rights" which clearly do not exist in law. It's entitlement thinking that simply has no basis in reality.
We are not governed by your Spanish law, and producers do not have some legal given right of presentation.
I'm suggesting the Spanish system as a basis for future ideas concerning IP laws. Actually yes they do. If you rip BluRay or DVD discs, you're violating the law.
Even where it is a question of law, are you like this on every Slashdot story? E.g., there's a story about the DMCA, and you post 50 comments telling us that that's what the law is? Yes, we know what the law is - it's the law that we're complaining about.
No, because most people know what the fucking DMCA says. There are no rights granted to consumers to rip DVDs into more portable formats, and there are no rights for consumers to break DRM. Consumers simply do not have this right. They should, but they don't and they need to be reminded of it.
I'm suggesting things that aren't codified as "rights" aren't rights.
In fact, the courts have decided that format shifting is *not* fair use(A&M Records vs Napster, UMG vs. MP3.com) by the way and there's no law on the books saying that format shifting *is* a right. DRM is a right held by content producers. I suggest you do not purchase from those producers if you're so bothered by it.
Not true.
The Passion of the Christ was a well made movie. The pacing was great, the scenes were shot very well, and the characterization was excellent.
I mean, it was still a snuff film hiding as a jesus freak film but still.
What consumer right is being violated and where was this right established?
This isn't about necessity, this is about legal reality. Producers of IP DO and still have RIGHTS themselves too. They over extend themselves, they do reprehensible acts to try to enforce those rights, but, never forget that rights with consumer goods go both ways. You have the right not to run DRM content and they have the right to put out DRMed content.
Under what law? In America, there's no such case law nor is there such laws on the books. I'm not sure what the case is in the UK, I found some articles talking about potentially codifying the right to format shift into law, but nothing about what happened with it.
So don't buy DRM content and if you're in the UK don't get a TV license until the BBC drops their DRM. Simple enough I'd say. Worked for music.
As a constituent in a political system, derive an argument that producer digital restrictions are harmful enough that you can campaign against your local politico and make it stick. These kinds of issues happen all the time. If it's really that bad, you can make it stick.
I support Spain's current IP system; you can redistribute all the IP you want, just don't try to make any god damned money off of it. Until that's the law of the land though, you have no *right* to be allowed to change presentation layers of digital media; particularly if it means circumventing encryption. I have no problems with people defying it in an act of civil disobedience, just never forget, that producers *do* and *should* have rights of distribution and presentation as the law stands now.
But you don't have that right. You may be given explicit permission to do so, but format shifting has by no means ever been defined as a "right."
The RIAA v. Rio case of 1999 specified that files that were already on your hard drive were free to be copied to other devices, not reconverted elsewhere for free use. DRM free media has no controls keeping you from doing whatever you want with it; from one device to another has been set into legal precedence, but one format to another has not.
I'm all for consumers rights here, but several things, until this is the law of the land, then there's no argument. There is no right for it. I advocate we change that; but also, I've noticed that when we make this our geeky political hot button issue, we're kind of ignoring the realities of the world around us. This is a first world, middle class problem. There are way more important things in life than DRM. GLBT discrimination for instance, racial profiling, health care, consumer rights(Yes, DRM included here; but consumer rights go way beyond just DRM and the DMCA), and the list goes on.
But will it suck more than stuff already approved for the Wii and DS? Lately, these platforms have picked up a reputation on Slashdot for harboring shovelware.
Yes.
Because you say that DRM removes rights of the consumer, which rights? Redistribution and authorized playback are the rights of the producer, not the consumer. Which is important when you're trying to convince someone to pay for a TV license on materials they can easily download online.
Consumers aren't left out in the cold! They fire up iPlayer and they get the fucking video.