It was a lame excuse to stretch the limits of juristiction then, and they'll come up with an even lamer excuse for this. They would do everything they can to harras this guy, even if the can't make anything stick, including have Jack Valenti call him a child molestor or some other far more vile name for copyright infringer like they did with "pirate".
There's already something to this effect in my comcast ToS, although it's more general than just wireless, and probably had people setting up their own mini-dialup ISPs in mind. I doubt they would (or could) enforce it if it's just a few passersby, but they probably would if one person shared thier connection to everyone in range and they actually used it.
There's a fundamental difference between duplicating the functionality of a driver and a unique song that you like. Do you really want the open source/free software solution applied to that?
RIAA: You can't copy our Britney Spears tunes.
RMS: (fires up karaoke machine)
The thing we should emphasize about open source is that as much as it's about free stuff it's also about individuals making something for themselves. Imagine you had the skill and resources to build your own wood furniture; would you still go to Ikea and buy it? Sometimes, you probably don't have the time to build all of it yourself, but when it costs you nothing except raw materials which you already have, there's no reason not to do it yourself. This attack by the movie industry is equivalent to IKEA taking away your power tools because you could possibly make furniture that would compete with them, eeve when you just want to make your own furniture, which they want you to buy from them anyway.
Ok, maybe its a stupid analogy, but it's one that anyone with a craft or skill could understand and empathize with.
Re:Does business always have to be this way ?
on
Dan Gillmor on WinXP
·
· Score: 1
But when it comes to buying a computer with their preferred OS consumers have no choice. Even when someone "votes with their wallets" for a linux distribution, any computer aside from one they've built themselves has already contributed towards a choice they did not want to make.
On top of that their selection of options was also much poorer (for laptops anyway). I looked into getting one of their laptops with linux preinstalled, and they just didn't have the configuration i wanted available. I suppose its more trouble to set up images for every conceivable combination of stuff that requires drivers, and wouldn't even bother with hardware that doesn't have the most solid driver support, but without that flexibility people like me would just settle on getting a better/cheaper model with windows preinstalled and install their favorite distro manually (which I probably would have done anyway, but the significance of buying the machine I wanted with any flavor of linux would be enough if they had the right machine available).
I for one am glad that so far most schemes have been so weak. I consider the whole scheme of needing "permission" from a machine to do what I will with my media extremely distasteful. If I have some new gadget that is entirely capable of playing a song I legally aquired then I should have every right to do that. Unfortunately, the difference between a second device I own and a device someone else owns is indistinguishable without some equally distasteful Orwellian technology.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of using encryption to publish things anyway. Encryption is a method of making a pattern of data a "secret". Once the data is decrypted, that layer of protection is removed and the only thing keeping the data secret is the discretion of the recipient. This may work when the two people involved mutually trust each other to keep the data secret, but unfortunately many people are even aware of a copyright holder's rights to be the sole source of reproduction and Napster and the issues surrounding it have made file sharing into a prepetual Boston Tea Party. Nearly all recipients in this scheme are untrustworthy of keeping anything from the publisher secret, whether out of ignorance or spite.
Ultimately, it's like trying to privately tell something (the same thing) to a significant proportion of the country, announce to the world that you're telling these people that secret, and expecting them not to tell the rest. Its human nature to want to share a cultural experience with others; it establishes a common frame of reference, and telling another to "buy your own" rather than giving them a copy (assuming they are not present to veiw it on your won equipment) is not a very nice way to establish that cultural bond.
That may be true, but they'd end up dragging the users with them in their quest to emulate this crummy exploitive technology. Open source works best when it makes technically superior stuff without worrying about petty political nonsense that.Net seeems to embody.
I once heard a quote "you can't rid the world of cannibalism by eating all the cannibals". The thing that makes microsoft "bad" is not just what they write, but the way they leverage it, and using their own techniques makes us no better than they are. Some may even argue that the changes made to break compatibility and fragment it are what make the software bad in the first place.
It is when the lock used is weaker than some sort of crappy toy lock you'd see on some kid's toy that breaks easily with the prying and the banging and the twisting and stuff like that only with less effort than that sounded like.
Computers don't "know" anything. Bits go in, bits come out, and it couldn't give a shit about what the state of those bits are. It's not the computer that knows stuff, its the guy who programmed it presuming to know what's best for you. What I "know" is that its taking too long to compile a kernel with 5000 modules for hardware that I don't even own, but someone out there might and features that might either open huge security holes or leave them open if not enabled, or crash the thing entirely are floating around in there, and while i may not want anything to do with them and waste valuable kilobytes of disk space and memory when compiled in, but someone out there probably wants them because they put them there in the first place.
Yep, in one episode Tyr is sitting around reading Atlas Shrugged. I've never read it myself, but if it could cause someone who just learned to read to swear off reading forever, I don't think I want to.
Re:Andromeda disappoints me.
on
Andromeda
·
· Score: 3
Of course, that transporter involved a black hole being nearby and all the computer power the ship could muster, which was the show's way of saying "This isn't going to happen on a regular basis". The time travel stuff also established the model of "history as we know it was a result of time travel in the first place", so it kinda removes that whole screwing with the time line worry.
Overall a lot of the tech expositive episodes seemed to establish the limits and differentiate itself from Trek's stuff, and often (but maybe not always) does it in a much more plausible manner. About the only thing that's really a stretch from real physics is the artificial gravity stuff, and by extention the slipstream (which is explained to be poorly understood in theshow's context anyway, it just works). I epecially like how the slipstream's randomness removes takes out the geography of everything, the lack of it in Star Trek was something that always bothered me.
Anyone who wants to give this show a chance should definitely check out http://allsystems.org, which has a lot of background info that helps establish some familiarity with the show's universe, and goes a lot more in depth to stuff that gets a passing mention in the show or seems to be written out of thin air.
Re:LOTR:FOTR trailer in downloadable Quicktime
on
Lord of the Trailers
·
· Score: 1
This is using directed antennas, so its not covering a "radius". To intercept it, you'd have to put your own antenna directly between the two others. Still not exactly hard, but not as effortless as being able to intercept from anywhere within a 1400 square mile area.
In case you weren't paying attention, he said he preferred efm, over nautilus, which is definitely not KDE. Most likely he is like mself, where he like a few bis and pieces from KDE and GNOME, but doesn't want to have the whole crapload of garbage that come with these "desktops"
Yeah, but that right only includes preventing others from distributing it to ther people, and a computer can't tell the difference between a set of computers I own and use myself and a friends computer. What I do with my media is my own damn business, not the record/movie cartels'
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing, on the driver level anyway. Unless the card uses crptographically signed drivers that make sure nothing else is recording, it won't play it's stuff. Of course, what's stopping you from plugging your line out into the line in of another computer is beyond me...
That's the catch to all this: the industry is producing software and hardware that restrains users beyond what is legal or illegal. Although you may do certain stuff under fair use, you can't using their products. So in essence they are writing their own laws, and your computer is now the judge, jury, and executioner.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a lame excuse to stretch the limits of juristiction then, and they'll come up with an even lamer excuse for this. They would do everything they can to harras this guy, even if the can't make anything stick, including have Jack Valenti call him a child molestor or some other far more vile name for copyright infringer like they did with "pirate".
There's already something to this effect in my comcast ToS, although it's more general than just wireless, and probably had people setting up their own mini-dialup ISPs in mind. I doubt they would (or could) enforce it if it's just a few passersby, but they probably would if one person shared thier connection to everyone in range and they actually used it.
There's a fundamental difference between duplicating the functionality of a driver and a unique song that you like. Do you really want the open source/free software solution applied to that?
RIAA: You can't copy our Britney Spears tunes.
RMS: (fires up karaoke machine)
The thing we should emphasize about open source is that as much as it's about free stuff it's also about individuals making something for themselves. Imagine you had the skill and resources to build your own wood furniture; would you still go to Ikea and buy it? Sometimes, you probably don't have the time to build all of it yourself, but when it costs you nothing except raw materials which you already have, there's no reason not to do it yourself. This attack by the movie industry is equivalent to IKEA taking away your power tools because you could possibly make furniture that would compete with them, eeve when you just want to make your own furniture, which they want you to buy from them anyway.
Ok, maybe its a stupid analogy, but it's one that anyone with a craft or skill could understand and empathize with.
This WAS the open source equivalent
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sjog/
But when it comes to buying a computer with their preferred OS consumers have no choice. Even when someone "votes with their wallets" for a linux distribution, any computer aside from one they've built themselves has already contributed towards a choice they did not want to make.
On top of that their selection of options was also much poorer (for laptops anyway). I looked into getting one of their laptops with linux preinstalled, and they just didn't have the configuration i wanted available. I suppose its more trouble to set up images for every conceivable combination of stuff that requires drivers, and wouldn't even bother with hardware that doesn't have the most solid driver support, but without that flexibility people like me would just settle on getting a better/cheaper model with windows preinstalled and install their favorite distro manually (which I probably would have done anyway, but the significance of buying the machine I wanted with any flavor of linux would be enough if they had the right machine available).
I for one am glad that so far most schemes have been so weak. I consider the whole scheme of needing "permission" from a machine to do what I will with my media extremely distasteful. If I have some new gadget that is entirely capable of playing a song I legally aquired then I should have every right to do that. Unfortunately, the difference between a second device I own and a device someone else owns is indistinguishable without some equally distasteful Orwellian technology.
I think there is a fundamental flaw in the idea of using encryption to publish things anyway. Encryption is a method of making a pattern of data a "secret". Once the data is decrypted, that layer of protection is removed and the only thing keeping the data secret is the discretion of the recipient. This may work when the two people involved mutually trust each other to keep the data secret, but unfortunately many people are even aware of a copyright holder's rights to be the sole source of reproduction and Napster and the issues surrounding it have made file sharing into a prepetual Boston Tea Party. Nearly all recipients in this scheme are untrustworthy of keeping anything from the publisher secret, whether out of ignorance or spite.
Ultimately, it's like trying to privately tell something (the same thing) to a significant proportion of the country, announce to the world that you're telling these people that secret, and expecting them not to tell the rest. Its human nature to want to share a cultural experience with others; it establishes a common frame of reference, and telling another to "buy your own" rather than giving them a copy (assuming they are not present to veiw it on your won equipment) is not a very nice way to establish that cultural bond.
Ok, enough pointless ranting for one night.
That may be true, but they'd end up dragging the users with them in their quest to emulate this crummy exploitive technology. Open source works best when it makes technically superior stuff without worrying about petty political nonsense that .Net seeems to embody.
I once heard a quote "you can't rid the world of cannibalism by eating all the cannibals". The thing that makes microsoft "bad" is not just what they write, but the way they leverage it, and using their own techniques makes us no better than they are. Some may even argue that the changes made to break compatibility and fragment it are what make the software bad in the first place.
It is when the lock used is weaker than some sort of crappy toy lock you'd see on some kid's toy that breaks easily with the prying and the banging and the twisting and stuff like that only with less effort than that sounded like.
earthquakes, eh?
wow, that made no sense whatsoever. Time to go to bed
Computers don't "know" anything. Bits go in, bits come out, and it couldn't give a shit about what the state of those bits are. It's not the computer that knows stuff, its the guy who programmed it presuming to know what's best for you. What I "know" is that its taking too long to compile a kernel with 5000 modules for hardware that I don't even own, but someone out there might and features that might either open huge security holes or leave them open if not enabled, or crash the thing entirely are floating around in there, and while i may not want anything to do with them and waste valuable kilobytes of disk space and memory when compiled in, but someone out there probably wants them because they put them there in the first place.
Yep, in one episode Tyr is sitting around reading Atlas Shrugged. I've never read it myself, but if it could cause someone who just learned to read to swear off reading forever, I don't think I want to.
Of course, that transporter involved a black hole being nearby and all the computer power the ship could muster, which was the show's way of saying "This isn't going to happen on a regular basis". The time travel stuff also established the model of "history as we know it was a result of time travel in the first place", so it kinda removes that whole screwing with the time line worry.
Overall a lot of the tech expositive episodes seemed to establish the limits and differentiate itself from Trek's stuff, and often (but maybe not always) does it in a much more plausible manner. About the only thing that's really a stretch from real physics is the artificial gravity stuff, and by extention the slipstream (which is explained to be poorly understood in theshow's context anyway, it just works). I epecially like how the slipstream's randomness removes takes out the geography of everything, the lack of it in Star Trek was something that always bothered me.
Anyone who wants to give this show a chance should definitely check out http://allsystems.org, which has a lot of background info that helps establish some familiarity with the show's universe, and goes a lot more in depth to stuff that gets a passing mention in the show or seems to be written out of thin air.
That's the old one
This is using directed antennas, so its not covering a "radius". To intercept it, you'd have to put your own antenna directly between the two others. Still not exactly hard, but not as effortless as being able to intercept from anywhere within a 1400 square mile area.
In case you weren't paying attention, he said he preferred efm, over nautilus, which is definitely not KDE. Most likely he is like mself, where he like a few bis and pieces from KDE and GNOME, but doesn't want to have the whole crapload of garbage that come with these "desktops"
Next time i lose a server i'll be sure to put my ears up against every wall in the buildintg :)
Yeah, but that right only includes preventing others from distributing it to ther people, and a computer can't tell the difference between a set of computers I own and use myself and a friends computer. What I do with my media is my own damn business, not the record/movie cartels'
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing, on the driver level anyway. Unless the card uses crptographically signed drivers that make sure nothing else is recording, it won't play it's stuff. Of course, what's stopping you from plugging your line out into the line in of another computer is beyond me...
That's the catch to all this: the industry is producing software and hardware that restrains users beyond what is legal or illegal. Although you may do certain stuff under fair use, you can't using their products. So in essence they are writing their own laws, and your computer is now the judge, jury, and executioner.
you rorgot Totalitarianism-in-a-box