This crap from Wallace serves my company a great deal by helping to convince Windows users to switch to Linux, so they don't have nearly _as many_ virus, malware and spyware problems.
Somehow I think "[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE]: License it today!!!" wouldn't sell so well...
The MPAA cannot have it both ways. Are they selling movies or licensing them?
SALE, contracts. An agreement by which one of the contracting parties, called the seller, gives a thing and passes the title to it, in exchange for a certain price in current money, to the other party, who is called the buyer or purchaser, who, on his part, agrees to pay such price. Pard. Dr. Com. n. 6; Noy's Max. ch. 42; Shep. Touch. 244; 2 Kent, Com. 363; Poth. Vente, n. 1; 1 Duverg. Dr. Civ. Fr. n. 7.
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.
I certainly did not intend to license my copy of "Lord of The Rings - Fellowship of The Ring". I intended to purchase it and in so doing, should be able to throw it into my fireplace and burn it if I wish. If I do have that right, then why wouldn't I have the right to play it on whatever device I want, anytime I want?
Why should everything on TV be free? It costs money to make and distribute content, and to make the tivo box itself and the infrastructure behind the service and you think all this should be provided for free?
It is reasonable to pay for the hardware and proprietary software which costs them money to produce. However if you read you'll notice that I placed in parentheses (for subscription fees).
If you already pay for cable TV, or satellite TV, then you are paying for TV listings already. Why do we have to pay for the listings again with Tivo?
Tivo's business model makes money from the data they collect and sell to advertisers and TV studio executives, regarding your viewing habits. It doesn't seem quite right to also take money from the consumer who provides the data that you sell for profit.
Yes, instead of Tivo users charging Tivo for their viewing habit data, it would be an easy compromize if neither party were charged meaning (free subscription). It seems reasonable to me. Else, Tivo users should send Tivo a bill for $15.00 per month for using their personal viewing habit data.
BTW, what I do for a living is work for a company that makes a subscribtion free alternative to Tivo. And, no we don't track the viewer's data.
I predict the FCC (Federal Corrupt Commission) will violently shove GNU Radio development into high gear by trying to regulate our freedom to communicate.
The thing that bothers me about Tivo is not the tracking what shows I watch or ads that I don't change the channel on or fast forward through. It is that I don't know exactly what data they are sending back and forth across the line.
Tivo is just another example of a broken distribution system that charges too much money (in subscription fees) for something that should be free. It is the anti-Robin Hood of the 21st century.
Plus how do we know they aren't tracking phone calls we make (and receive, for those of us that have callerID), DVDs that you watch, etc?
If all intellectual property should be free why aren't code writers working for free and working at the local 7 eleven to pay their bills?
Being paid is one thing, raping the customer and the artist through price gouging and just plain theft is another.
Why gouge the customer for a distribution chain that is inefficient and obsolete. The artist should get paid for their creation enough to pay their bills like the rest of us.
Eben Moglen explains it this way, "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"
Don't charge me $20.00 US for a CD with 10 tunes on it when the artist gets paid.03 cents per tune and tell me it is for distribution costs, when I can download the same 10 tunes for free and burn a CD for 50 cents.
What I mean to say is that it surprises me to see so many "intelligent" people saying this was obviously the work of a Linux "fan", "user", "advocate". It seems more likely, to me, that a person or group of people that dislike Linux or love M$ would do something like this.
Ask yourself who benefits from the attack and who does the attack really harm?
The other argument is that it is just some mal-adjusted kid trying to express herself.
Slashdot Mirror
This crap from Wallace serves my company a great deal by helping to convince Windows users to switch to Linux, so they don't have nearly _as many_ virus, malware and spyware problems.
Maybe Wallace is actually Scottish for Torvalds.
Somehow I think "[INSERT MOVIE NAME HERE]: License it today!!!" wouldn't sell so well...
The MPAA cannot have it both ways. Are they selling movies or licensing them?
SALE, contracts. An agreement by which one of the contracting parties, called the seller, gives a thing and passes the title to it, in exchange for a certain price in current money, to the other party, who is called the buyer or purchaser, who, on his part, agrees to pay such price. Pard. Dr. Com. n. 6; Noy's Max. ch. 42; Shep. Touch. 244; 2 Kent, Com. 363; Poth. Vente, n. 1; 1 Duverg. Dr. Civ. Fr. n. 7.
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.
I certainly did not intend to license my copy of "Lord of The Rings - Fellowship of The Ring". I intended to purchase it and in so doing, should be able to throw it into my fireplace and burn it if I wish. If I do have that right, then why wouldn't I have the right to play it on whatever device I want, anytime I want?
Why should everything on TV be free? It costs money to make and distribute content, and to make the tivo box itself and the infrastructure behind the service and you think all this should be provided for free?
It is reasonable to pay for the hardware and proprietary software which costs them money to produce. However if you read you'll notice that I placed in parentheses (for subscription fees).
If you already pay for cable TV, or satellite TV, then you are paying for TV listings already. Why do we have to pay for the listings again with Tivo?
Tivo's business model makes money from the data they collect and sell to advertisers and TV studio executives, regarding your viewing habits. It doesn't seem quite right to also take money from the consumer who provides the data that you sell for profit.
Yes, instead of Tivo users charging Tivo for their viewing habit data, it would be an easy compromize if neither party were charged meaning (free subscription). It seems reasonable to me. Else, Tivo users should send Tivo a bill for $15.00 per month for using their personal viewing habit data.
BTW, what I do for a living is work for a company that makes a subscribtion free alternative to Tivo. And, no we don't track the viewer's data.
I predict the FCC (Federal Corrupt Commission) will violently shove GNU Radio development into high gear by trying to regulate our freedom to communicate.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio/gnuradio.html
Quick someone boil the Internet!!
Plus why would they allow things like this?
The thing that bothers me about Tivo is not the tracking what shows I watch or ads that I don't change the channel on or fast forward through. It is that I don't know exactly what data they are sending back and forth across the line.
Tivo is just another example of a broken distribution system that charges too much money (in subscription fees) for something that should be free. It is the anti-Robin Hood of the 21st century.
Plus how do we know they aren't tracking phone calls we make (and receive, for those of us that have callerID), DVDs that you watch, etc?
--
and that's my 1.99 cents.
If all intellectual property should be free why aren't code writers working for free and working at the local 7 eleven to pay their bills?
Being paid is one thing, raping the customer and the artist through price gouging and just plain theft is another.
Why gouge the customer for a distribution chain that is inefficient and obsolete. The artist should get paid for their creation enough to pay their bills like the rest of us.
Eben Moglen explains it this way, "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay?"
Don't charge me $20.00 US for a CD with 10 tunes on it when the artist gets paid .03 cents per tune and tell me it is for distribution costs, when I can download the same 10 tunes for free and burn a CD for 50 cents.
What I mean to say is that it surprises me to see so many "intelligent" people saying this was obviously the work of a Linux "fan", "user", "advocate". It seems more likely, to me, that a person or group of people that dislike Linux or love M$ would do something like this.
Ask yourself who benefits from the attack and who does the attack really harm?
The other argument is that it is just some mal-adjusted kid trying to express herself.
Why is it "obviously" a Linux/Open Source fan?