A DVD-Recorder has been in the market for some time now. It uses the DVD-RW, and not DVD+RW. Can't tell you which is better but it the point is that HP didn't release the first DVD-Recorder.
Napster was accused of vicarious copyright infringment . Basically this means that even though they didn't "steal" the music, they wre the means to do it, in other words, the getaway car.
Napster provided a general service for sharing audio files. They were not the getaway car. They were the bus that passes in front of the bank.
Indeed Napster was mainly used to distribute copyrighted material. However the question you must ask is: Who was illegaly distributing copyrighted material with Napster? It was the users.
Napster doesn't break copyright, people break copyright.
. . . employees at Smith & Wesson don't have to fear that the FBI is going to swoop down and arrest them because their products led to somebody being killed, yet employees of software companies need to fear that some FBI agent is going to swoop down and arrest them because it's possible that somebody used their code to steal the latest John Grisham novel.
You get them[, the people,] to obey the law by making the law reasonable and getting people to be respectful of it, and that's the direction we ought to be going.
What illegal act does DeCSS enable? Exactly one - circumvention of the "country code" so that a DVD produced for the US market can be viewed in Europe. These codes, it should be noted, were created solely to create artifically limited markets so the studios can make more money.
I belive you are wrong in this statement. DeCSS has nothing to do with the region code. The region code is just a number on the disc that the DVD player can check and might refuse to play the disc if it has the wrong region. Also many players on the market don't check the region and play all discs
Besides from the region code the MPEG2 stream is encrypted with CSS (Content Scrambling System). It is this encryption that you get around by using DeCSS. Without DeCSS you wouldn't be able to view any DVD at all.
It's napster's servers.. they can do whatever they want.
Yes they can. However this doesn't justifie it as right. This means that some people using Linux or any other OS that they don't support, will not be able to use their service.
This will mean that when I want to use napster I will have to reboot my computer to windows, download the song that I want. And then reboot again. As if there weren't enough things that people not wunning MS Windows can't enjoy already.
So in other words: This sucks! Hope the gnapster hackers can do something about this as soon as possible.
I agree with a lot you say. With e-mail this is no big problem because everyone uses the one he feels comfortable with and nothing else.
However when it comes to multimedia codecs it is extremly importand to have standards. And it's not enough that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware community accept it as a standard. The rest of the world must to.
So what we need is an Open/Free codec that will be so good that the windows-people wil use it even if it doesn't ship with windows (DivX managed to do that). And then we would finaly be able to not feel so "left out" for using an alternativ OS.
So now it's a little clearer. But it still makes very little sense. When a ditributer releases a new ditribution it makes sense. People will buy CD:s with it, or download images. When others ask "Which version do you have?" you will say "x.y" and the others will be able to look up which version of a specific library or program you have (unless you upgraded that specific one).
However in the case of gnome I see no similar system. They send a pressrelease to some newssite but they don't post it in their own "press releases" section. They don't even mention it in gnotices. There is no 1.4 directory in the ftp so you know you are donwloading 1.4.
What are they saying? "If you downloaded GNOME yesterday, you got 1.2. If you download it now, you got 1.4".
There are several things that could be happening, none of which excludes another:
a) I'm simply stupid.
b) 1.4 has not been released, and everybody says it has just to drive crazy.
c) There is no actual point to talk about gnome this and gnome that. Gnome is just a bunch of individual packages.
d) It's all a huge joke.
e) It's all a huge conspiracy (see b).
Seriously, what's the definition of a gnome release? gnome-core? gnome-libs? gnome-center? All of these have a 1.2.x version number. Or do they simply from time to time say "Hey now Gnome x.y is out" to make people upgrade their packages?
The webiste (gnome.org) gives no information what so ever.
Do you feel as confused as I do? Let me know I'm not alone.
Do you understand totaly and think I'm stupid. Please enlighten me so I will understand as well.
Just go and buy a 40 GB hard drive now that they don't have any copy control. With 40 GB I think it whould take you a few years before you must upgrade again. If you have doubts, buy a bigger hard drive. Now cross your fingers and hope that everyone else will do the same and that nobody will buy those horrible hard drives with copy contol.
If we (the consumers) react this way, we can force them to leave this new standard.
I must comment to the statement that implies that the BSD-licens is not free. Please read these two quotes from http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
==BEGIN QUOTE 1==
The original BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.)
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does
cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the BSD license.
==END QUOTE 1==
==BEGIN QUOTE 2==
The modified BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem. It is compatible with the GNU GPL.
It is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the original flawed BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.
==END QUOTE 2==
As you can see BSD is and has aleays been free (speach). The original had some small problem that made it incompatible with the GPL, but this is taken care of.
Here is the thing. GNOME started to make a free (speech) alternative to KDE/Qt. If Trolltech had instantly changed the license to GPL I would guess that GNOME would have been canceled.
Since then, GNOME has grown to a huge thing. RMS will not tell all the users to switch to KDE and all the developers to stop or switch. The developers want to continue, so they will continue.
The "go get 'em" doesn't mean he wants to crush KDE. He has already stated that now KDE/Qt can be seen as a contribution and not a threat. He just cheers the team he sympathizes the most. Maybe because even if they are free now, they have generaly shown that they don't think freedom is as valuable as RMS/FSF does.
Actually this has happend in (Swedish) history. A long time ago, before freedom of speech and the alike there was a newspaper called "Aftonbladet". The Swedish government tried to stop it but they just made an entirely new newspaper called "Aftonbladet2". This went on for a long time and I don't remember how many versions of "Aftonbladet#" it took until the government gave up.
If you fight for freedom of speech today. Tomorow you will be a national hero. Don't let MPAA get to you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I understand a little bit.
First off all mp3board.com does not provide pirated music. It enables you to find any music provided by other people. They have no responsibility for what other people provide. Neither does AOL for the gnutella-users.(IMHO this would be the only defense Napster should need).
Check out comment 10 to see what I'm talking about.
As I see things the only thing they can do is to sue every single user that provides any copyrighted material, one by one. (Gnutella doesn't even exist in the sense of central servers. The users are the network)
At last I would like to say that if I got something wrong, (or the whole thing for that matter) please reply to this comment.
When it comes to live broadcasting the quality is as high the connection speed allows.
Unless we are talking about a new technology that makes this possible over old modems or something it's just a sign that the connections get faster in general.
Slashdot Mirror
A DVD-Recorder has been in the market for some time now. It uses the DVD-RW, and not DVD+RW. Can't tell you which is better but it the point is that HP didn't release the first DVD-Recorder.
More info on the pioneer drive can be found here: http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/Pioneer/CDA/Indu strial/IndustrialProductDetails/0,1444,796,00.html .
Napster provided a general service for sharing audio files. They were not the getaway car. They were the bus that passes in front of the bank.
Indeed Napster was mainly used to distribute copyrighted material. However the question you must ask is: Who was illegaly distributing copyrighted material with Napster? It was the users.
Napster doesn't break copyright, people break copyright.
Hope they speak for themselves.
I belive you are wrong in this statement. DeCSS has nothing to do with the region code. The region code is just a number on the disc that the DVD player can check and might refuse to play the disc if it has the wrong region. Also many players on the market don't check the region and play all discs
Besides from the region code the MPEG2 stream is encrypted with CSS (Content Scrambling System). It is this encryption that you get around by using DeCSS. Without DeCSS you wouldn't be able to view any DVD at all.
It's napster's servers.. they can do whatever they want.
Yes they can. However this doesn't justifie it as right. This means that some people using Linux or any other OS that they don't support, will not be able to use their service.
This will mean that when I want to use napster I will have to reboot my computer to windows, download the song that I want. And then reboot again. As if there weren't enough things that people not wunning MS Windows can't enjoy already.
So in other words: This sucks! Hope the gnapster hackers can do something about this as soon as possible.
If you don't feal like spending any time on reading the answers, here is a summary:
Q: Is DeCSS speech?
A: EFF: yes!
MPAA: no!
Because I'm too lazy to read 21846 bytes of text that explains why I should.
I agree with a lot you say. With e-mail this is no big problem because everyone uses the one he feels comfortable with and nothing else.
However when it comes to multimedia codecs it is extremly importand to have standards. And it's not enough that the OpenSource/FreeSoftware community accept it as a standard. The rest of the world must to.
So what we need is an Open/Free codec that will be so good that the windows-people wil use it even if it doesn't ship with windows (DivX managed to do that). And then we would finaly be able to not feel so "left out" for using an alternativ OS.
Ok.
So now it's a little clearer. But it still makes very little sense. When a ditributer releases a new ditribution it makes sense. People will buy CD:s with it, or download images. When others ask "Which version do you have?" you will say "x.y" and the others will be able to look up which version of a specific library or program you have (unless you upgraded that specific one).
However in the case of gnome I see no similar system. They send a pressrelease to some newssite but they don't post it in their own "press releases" section. They don't even mention it in gnotices. There is no 1.4 directory in the ftp so you know you are donwloading 1.4.
What are they saying? "If you downloaded GNOME yesterday, you got 1.2. If you download it now, you got 1.4".
I am still confused.
There are several things that could be happening, none of which excludes another:
a) I'm simply stupid.
b) 1.4 has not been released, and everybody says it has just to drive crazy.
c) There is no actual point to talk about gnome this and gnome that. Gnome is just a bunch of individual packages.
d) It's all a huge joke.
e) It's all a huge conspiracy (see b).
Seriously, what's the definition of a gnome release? gnome-core? gnome-libs? gnome-center? All of these have a 1.2.x version number. Or do they simply from time to time say "Hey now Gnome x.y is out" to make people upgrade their packages?
The webiste (gnome.org) gives no information what so ever.
Do you feel as confused as I do? Let me know I'm not alone.
Do you understand totaly and think I'm stupid. Please enlighten me so I will understand as well.
This reminds me og a James Bond movie.
Any one else?
A webpage for help to the people who whant to run Linux have been around for a while. Check it out:o p/
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/linux-lapt
Just go and buy a 40 GB hard drive now that they don't have any copy control. With 40 GB I think it whould take you a few years before you must upgrade again. If you have doubts, buy a bigger hard drive. Now cross your fingers and hope that everyone else will do the same and that nobody will buy those horrible hard drives with copy contol.
If we (the consumers) react this way, we can force them to leave this new standard.
Are you with me?
I must comment to the statement that implies that the BSD-licens is not free. Please read these two quotes from http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html
==BEGIN QUOTE 1==
The original BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.)
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does
cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the BSD license.
==END QUOTE 1==
==BEGIN QUOTE 2==
The modified BSD license. (Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem. It is compatible with the GNU GPL.
It is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the original flawed BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead.
==END QUOTE 2==
As you can see BSD is and has aleays been free (speach). The original had some small problem that made it incompatible with the GPL, but this is taken care of.
("We hereby grant you forgiveness..") Come on! WHO ARE YOU? GOD?
The forgiveness is a strictly legal thing. Not a personal forgiveness to you as a persson.
Here is the thing. GNOME started to make a free (speech) alternative to KDE/Qt. If Trolltech had instantly changed the license to GPL I would guess that GNOME would have been canceled.
Since then, GNOME has grown to a huge thing. RMS will not tell all the users to switch to KDE and all the developers to stop or switch. The developers want to continue, so they will continue.
The "go get 'em" doesn't mean he wants to crush KDE. He has already stated that now KDE/Qt can be seen as a contribution and not a threat. He just cheers the team he sympathizes the most. Maybe because even if they are free now, they have generaly shown that they don't think freedom is as valuable as RMS/FSF does.
Actually this has happend in (Swedish) history. A long time ago, before freedom of speech and the alike there was a newspaper called "Aftonbladet". The Swedish government tried to stop it but they just made an entirely new newspaper called "Aftonbladet2". This went on for a long time and I don't remember how many versions of "Aftonbladet#" it took until the government gave up.
If you fight for freedom of speech today. Tomorow you will be a national hero. Don't let MPAA get to you.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think I understand a little bit.
First off all mp3board.com does not provide pirated music. It enables you to find any music provided by other people. They have no responsibility for what other people provide. Neither does AOL for the gnutella-users.(IMHO this would be the only defense Napster should need).
Check out comment 10 to see what I'm talking about.
As I see things the only thing they can do is to sue every single user that provides any copyrighted material, one by one. (Gnutella doesn't even exist in the sense of central servers. The users are the network)
At last I would like to say that if I got something wrong, (or the whole thing for that matter) please reply to this comment.
What are you talking about? It works perfctly to type "text-decoration: none;" in n6 for me.
I don't believe anyone is surprised by this.
When it comes to live broadcasting the quality is as high the connection speed allows.
Unless we are talking about a new technology that makes this possible over old modems or something it's just a sign that the connections get faster in general.
In other words: Not "Internet history".
(IMHO)