This whole situation makes me think of that scene in Life of Brian, where the People's front of Judea accuse the Judean people's front and all the other variants of being splitters. Just like System V/BSD wars, and the Linux/Windows/BSD splits, it seems that geeks can't form a single contiguous organisation.
So, we now have spearate groups, with the same goal, but no shared consensus. We have the EFF, Digital Consumer, and now IP justice, as well as Lessig and Eldred battling in their corner, as well as the European organisations.
The result is that we have several groups all treading on each other's toes, fighting against a single unified enemy. The MPAA is the same organisation under all its names in various countries, and represents all the studios. What to we do to defeat it? We form another split!
It makes no sense at all. Why should dolls be taxed at one rate, and toys at another? I think they must have got some guy who was too clever to do a simple job, so he gave as complicated a result as he could. They asked "what should be the duty on toys", and he said "Well, clearly we have several classes of toy. The basic toy should have a dity of $x. However, since a doll clearly costs us considerably more money for some unexplained reason, we should charge $y. Now then, by squaring this and taking the reciprocal......"
The result is that we get these stupid long winded legal arguments that cost cusatoms and the court system time and money that would have been better spent on just about anything. Just work out a weighted average and apply the result to all toys and dolls.
Yes. It is a non-issue. It's just sort of funny. Read the article. Read the comments. Laugh. We know it doesn't matter. This is just news for nerds. Not stuff that matters.
It's just an amusing irony that after years fighting to convince a world that they're human in the comics, in real life the makers argue that they're not.
Anyway, that - in itself - is the whole point. You can laugh now. Or not. It loses a bit when it gets explained.
They make the story a little more interesting by talking to a couple of comics fans, who either take it all a little too seriously, or are simply willing to play to the stereotype to get their name in the paper. This is one of the rare cases where I'd suggest Don't RTFA.
This will potentially lose the concept of the secret ballot. There is no way to show that the voters were not coerced into voting the way that they did. It's quite easy to have someone look over their shoulder and tell them which way to vote.
True, but with paper based voting there is a logistical barrier to prevent this. You need to actually employ some people to input the data. Its a lot of work for one person.
Indeed. No job would take me on, because I only had skill with Netscape, and they needed someone who knows how to use IE. It's really crippled my career options.
Most jobs don't need skill with Word or Excel either. Basic familiarity with how a spreadsheet and word processor work are more useful than having used Word a lot. I don't know about you, but when I learned to use a word processor. And when I was taught to use a spread sheet, I was told what it does, not just how to put little numbers into the boxes. Too many people were clearly not taught this, and think that a spreadsheet is just for presentations. They use a frickin calculator with it!
A Linux spreadsheet will probably be more use if this is the case.
Good point about the free CD. Although I'd have thought that handing over money for a box with a CD in it implies purchase of the software. You could always ask "Will you sell me this software for $x", making it a sale. Even if you don't, the receipt says it's for the software, and not a licence for the software. I'll bet there's similar receipts gong all the way back to the original supplier.
I've always felt it would be interesting to argue that the copy of Windows on my machine is legal because I agreed to the "I agree". Presumably this means that Microsoft have forgiven me for pirating it, and allowed me some use of the software. I don't think this argument would go too far though.
Hell! So why do they insist on an EULA? Hell, if it's valid aren't they guilty of obstruction or something? I'm sure I'm not allowed to prevent you from doing something that you're legally entitled to do to make you sign a contract!
Seriously, when she comes out with crap like this, it really weakens their position. People might agree with the general anti-piracy position, but when you start suggesting that this position will cost them money, watch their allegiences change.
It depends on what our rights are with respect to using a piece of software. Specifically - is copying a computer program into memory a violation of copyright?
If it is a violation, then you're correct. They both have the same purpose - permission to make a copy in exchange for loss of certain rights.
If copyright law does permit you to copy the software to memory, and store a permanent copy onto a hard disk, then this a typical EULA is a requirement to surrender certain rights in exchange for the software removing a block that prevents your legitimate use of a piece of software.
People keep hoping for the courts to deal with this. How about giving democracy a chance. We don't need a legal opinion. We need better laws.
Personally, I think it shoudld be explicitely stated in copyright law that the purchaser of a piece of software has the right to install it, run it and make backups of it. And that any agreement signed after the purchase is not valid.
Lawyers being what they are, this would need a little more work, but the basic gist of it should save everyone a lot of effort.
Yes.. I know their reasons. I feel that a lot of that is a little over simplistic.
. They want us to pay $20 for a CD that cost less than 1 to manufacture
I don't like this argument. It's misleading, and therefore self defeating. The reason they charge more than the cost of a CD is that they have to pay royalties to the performers, and recoup initial costs. They may not be doing this in a fair way, but they're ripping of the performers, not their customers.
and most of those are filled with garbage.
Well, why buy them if they're filled with garbage?
Increasingly, they won't play in a computer because of "copy protection,"
Never caused me a problem. But this is a good point. It causes more harm for legitimate purchasers than it does for pirates. If I want to copy a CD, I can get a perfectly adequate copy by recording through the analogue inputs. Most people can't tell the difference anyway. On the other hand, many people find it convenient to use their PC to play music when using the PC. The audio controls are on the desktop.
How do we tell them we don't approve? By boycotting their products.
That doesn't work. Any reduction in sales is put down to piracy. This will result in more restrictions, not fewer.
Seriously - they can't compete in terms of volume with absolutely everyone else on the network. The chance of a particular file being junk is quite low. If they want to do this, then fair enough.
I don't really disapprove of their methods or their motives, except that it's a waste of time and money.
Hundreds of inventors came to work for him and he ended up patenting THEIR work.
This is pretty much boilerplate for most tech companies. If you work for a company based entirely on innovation, then they need your ideas. You get a good stable salary, and support for development in return for your creativity.
Edison did not have a monopoly on ideas though, which is the main difference between him and the RIAA. They could work for other people, or for themselves, or with private backing.
The rest of your comment, I have no issue with - I totally agree that Edison was a git, and better at marketing than inventing.
It's only a concept. The engineers were trying to be way out and adventurous. No doubt this will become a standard family car with a different engine, and either some cunning use for the extra space, or a gradual shift towards shorter fronts.
It's a tricky struggle. What they need to do is develop electric trucks and vans. If they are better than exisiting engines for some tasks, then some large organisations will have them, and just refuel at the depots. Refueling at the depot is not always the most convenient option since this may require returning to the depot in between journeys, so this will provide a market for gas stations to supply hydrogen. One this foothold is established, it's plain sailing.
Cool. I want voice control. I just want to state a destination and it will get me there.
Actually, I saw a concept for a self driving car several years ago. Did the whole Mirror signal manouver before overtaking and everything. No idea what happened to that. All self driving concepots I've seen since are nowhere near as good.
Hell, I'd love one of these as long as the fuel cell can give me the power I want. I live in England where motor fuel prices are taxed extortionately. LPG and hydrogen are exempt from this tax.
The 80 horsepower isn't staggering, but it will be a very light car since it has no need for a gearbox, driveshaft, or that much of an engine. The motors can be attached straight to the wheels, ajnd since you don't have so much weight, the whole infrastructure can be lighter. You don't need such a heavy chassis to support it all.
That said, I think I'd prefer a proper power assisted mechanical steering system rather than a totally automated one. Electrically operated brakes, I can live with. Electric motors can be used quite effectively as brakes if need be.
Anyway, this is just a concept. Give me a hardtop convertible sports version with a little more power, and I'll buy it.
I think the poster was talking about cracking the other machine to protect your own. Not killing the cracker - although I'm sure some admins would like to be able to do this to their users.
Slashdot Mirror
If there were no record companies, it's possible that we wouldn't have get the Beatles at all.
Although it seems that record companies were as hopelessly conservative back then as they are today.
This whole situation makes me think of that scene in Life of Brian, where the People's front of Judea accuse the Judean people's front and all the other variants of being splitters. Just like System V/BSD wars, and the Linux/Windows/BSD splits, it seems that geeks can't form a single contiguous organisation.
So, we now have spearate groups, with the same goal, but no shared consensus. We have the EFF, Digital Consumer, and now IP justice, as well as Lessig and Eldred battling in their corner, as well as the European organisations.
The result is that we have several groups all treading on each other's toes, fighting against a single unified enemy. The MPAA is the same organisation under all its names in various countries, and represents all the studios. What to we do to defeat it? We form another split!
Hey! Do you have permission to use those lyrics?
I mean there's only so far you can pad out the "do X; ???; Profit" troll.
It makes no sense at all. Why should dolls be taxed at one rate, and toys at another? I think they must have got some guy who was too clever to do a simple job, so he gave as complicated a result as he could. They asked "what should be the duty on toys", and he said "Well, clearly we have several classes of toy. The basic toy should have a dity of $x. However, since a doll clearly costs us considerably more money for some unexplained reason, we should charge $y. Now then, by squaring this and taking the reciprocal......"
The result is that we get these stupid long winded legal arguments that cost cusatoms and the court system time and money that would have been better spent on just about anything. Just work out a weighted average and apply the result to all toys and dolls.
Yes. It is a non-issue. It's just sort of funny. Read the article. Read the comments. Laugh. We know it doesn't matter. This is just news for nerds. Not stuff that matters.
It's just an amusing irony that after years fighting to convince a world that they're human in the comics, in real life the makers argue that they're not.
Anyway, that - in itself - is the whole point. You can laugh now. Or not. It loses a bit when it gets explained.
They make the story a little more interesting by talking to a couple of comics fans, who either take it all a little too seriously, or are simply willing to play to the stereotype to get their name in the paper. This is one of the rare cases where I'd suggest Don't RTFA.
This will potentially lose the concept of the secret ballot. There is no way to show that the voters were not coerced into voting the way that they did. It's quite easy to have someone look over their shoulder and tell them which way to vote.
True, but with paper based voting there is a logistical barrier to prevent this. You need to actually employ some people to input the data. Its a lot of work for one person.
Indeed. No job would take me on, because I only had skill with Netscape, and they needed someone who knows how to use IE. It's really crippled my career options.
Most jobs don't need skill with Word or Excel either. Basic familiarity with how a spreadsheet and word processor work are more useful than having used Word a lot. I don't know about you, but when I learned to use a word processor. And when I was taught to use a spread sheet, I was told what it does, not just how to put little numbers into the boxes. Too many people were clearly not taught this, and think that a spreadsheet is just for presentations. They use a frickin calculator with it!
A Linux spreadsheet will probably be more use if this is the case.
Good point about the free CD. Although I'd have thought that handing over money for a box with a CD in it implies purchase of the software. You could always ask "Will you sell me this software for $x", making it a sale. Even if you don't, the receipt says it's for the software, and not a licence for the software. I'll bet there's similar receipts gong all the way back to the original supplier.
I've always felt it would be interesting to argue that the copy of Windows on my machine is legal because I agreed to the "I agree". Presumably this means that Microsoft have forgiven me for pirating it, and allowed me some use of the software. I don't think this argument would go too far though.
Hell! So why do they insist on an EULA? Hell, if it's valid aren't they guilty of obstruction or something? I'm sure I'm not allowed to prevent you from doing something that you're legally entitled to do to make you sign a contract!
Seriously, when she comes out with crap like this, it really weakens their position. People might agree with the general anti-piracy position, but when you start suggesting that this position will cost them money, watch their allegiences change.
The best thing the RIAA could do is gag her.
It depends on what our rights are with respect to using a piece of software. Specifically - is copying a computer program into memory a violation of copyright?
If it is a violation, then you're correct. They both have the same purpose - permission to make a copy in exchange for loss of certain rights.
If copyright law does permit you to copy the software to memory, and store a permanent copy onto a hard disk, then this a typical EULA is a requirement to surrender certain rights in exchange for the software removing a block that prevents your legitimate use of a piece of software.
People keep hoping for the courts to deal with this. How about giving democracy a chance. We don't need a legal opinion. We need better laws.
Personally, I think it shoudld be explicitely stated in copyright law that the purchaser of a piece of software has the right to install it, run it and make backups of it. And that any agreement signed after the purchase is not valid.
Lawyers being what they are, this would need a little more work, but the basic gist of it should save everyone a lot of effort.
Yes.. I know their reasons. I feel that a lot of that is a little over simplistic.
. They want us to pay $20 for a CD that cost less than 1 to manufacture
I don't like this argument. It's misleading, and therefore self defeating. The reason they charge more than the cost of a CD is that they have to pay royalties to the performers, and recoup initial costs. They may not be doing this in a fair way, but they're ripping of the performers, not their customers.
and most of those are filled with garbage.
Well, why buy them if they're filled with garbage?
Increasingly, they won't play in a computer because of "copy protection,"
Never caused me a problem. But this is a good point. It causes more harm for legitimate purchasers than it does for pirates. If I want to copy a CD, I can get a perfectly adequate copy by recording through the analogue inputs. Most people can't tell the difference anyway. On the other hand, many people find it convenient to use their PC to play music when using the PC. The audio controls are on the desktop.
How do we tell them we don't approve? By boycotting their products.
That doesn't work. Any reduction in sales is put down to piracy. This will result in more restrictions, not fewer.
Seriously - they can't compete in terms of volume with absolutely everyone else on the network. The chance of a particular file being junk is quite low. If they want to do this, then fair enough. I don't really disapprove of their methods or their motives, except that it's a waste of time and money.
Yep. The other one is DHD - Dial Home Device.
Which means that future retroactive copyright extension acts will not be unconstitutional.
Hundreds of inventors came to work for him and he ended up patenting THEIR work.
This is pretty much boilerplate for most tech companies. If you work for a company based entirely on innovation, then they need your ideas. You get a good stable salary, and support for development in return for your creativity.
Edison did not have a monopoly on ideas though, which is the main difference between him and the RIAA. They could work for other people, or for themselves, or with private backing.
The rest of your comment, I have no issue with - I totally agree that Edison was a git, and better at marketing than inventing.
It's only a concept. The engineers were trying to be way out and adventurous. No doubt this will become a standard family car with a different engine, and either some cunning use for the extra space, or a gradual shift towards shorter fronts.
It's a tricky struggle. What they need to do is develop electric trucks and vans. If they are better than exisiting engines for some tasks, then some large organisations will have them, and just refuel at the depots. Refueling at the depot is not always the most convenient option since this may require returning to the depot in between journeys, so this will provide a market for gas stations to supply hydrogen. One this foothold is established, it's plain sailing.
Cool. I want voice control. I just want to state a destination and it will get me there.
Actually, I saw a concept for a self driving car several years ago. Did the whole Mirror signal manouver before overtaking and everything. No idea what happened to that. All self driving concepots I've seen since are nowhere near as good.
Hell, I'd love one of these as long as the fuel cell can give me the power I want. I live in England where motor fuel prices are taxed extortionately. LPG and hydrogen are exempt from this tax.
The 80 horsepower isn't staggering, but it will be a very light car since it has no need for a gearbox, driveshaft, or that much of an engine. The motors can be attached straight to the wheels, ajnd since you don't have so much weight, the whole infrastructure can be lighter. You don't need such a heavy chassis to support it all.
That said, I think I'd prefer a proper power assisted mechanical steering system rather than a totally automated one. Electrically operated brakes, I can live with. Electric motors can be used quite effectively as brakes if need be.
Anyway, this is just a concept. Give me a hardtop convertible sports version with a little more power, and I'll buy it.
I think the poster was talking about cracking the other machine to protect your own. Not killing the cracker - although I'm sure some admins would like to be able to do this to their users.