"CD is now $17.99, sometimes even $18.99 or $21.99...blown away that they wanted $19.99 for ONE CD"
I must be living in some other universe. I hear these price quotes over and over and I personally rarely pay more than $14 a CD, and $14 is considered a very high price to me. I have over 300 CDs, 200 LPs and about 150 tapes. I buy a CD about once a month or so, usually around $10-12 per album. Of course though, when you listen to bands labels like Dischord (which charges $10/CD), I guess you don't pay much.
On top of this, my very extensive 30s-40s jazz collection on vinyl. I guess children spending their daddy's money on Pop music just don't know better.
Do you expect to find positive statements of the non-existence of this twisted version of contract law? The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to find postive proof of it's existence.
Contracts, after the acceptance of item, aren't valid. That's the problem. How can one distribute an item with the IMPLIED acceptance of a contract before the contract is accepted? Why are people expected to KNOW the contents of a contract BEFORE the exchange of an item? They can't and it's absured to think they will. It's absurd to accept MONEY before the contract is accepted. Contracts don't work that way.
Which is exactly why someone can't mail you a book and have a license around that book saying if you don't that book back you now owe them some money.
This is especially bad in an age where if you DON'T accept the contract, you don't get your money back because the person who sold you the item says the contract is with the maker of the item and the person who makes the item says to get your money back from the person who sold you the item. Making a nice legal vacuum whereby you lose money and the ability to use the item.
In the case of iTunes, you download the software, which is freely and non-contractually distributed by Apple to you, then if you want to USE the item that you now possess, somehow magically you MUST accept the contract. If you don't accept the contract, then you can't use it? What an odd way to think. Non-accept of the contract means just that, you don't accept ANY terms of the contract, including the part of the contract that says you can't use the item if you don't accept the contract and therefore you keep ALL the rights you had before they tried to force the contract on you.
Contracts are NOT onesided (some States make a VERY strong point of this). They can't even take certain rights away (Warrenties, for example, depending on the State), even if that contract was pounded out in good faith and physically signed in perfect view of both legal teams. Contracts CAN'T take way my right to use an item I have. Period.
"When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses."
You have fallen victim to a false way of thinking. You are suggesting, the mere moving of a mouse pointer over a button and clicking is the same as signing a contract. The idea that you "license" software is absolutely NOT supported by US law. Do you license books? A license is needed for distributing copyrighted works. The mere use of copyrighted works is pretty much not covered by copyright law (save for public broadcast, which is treated in a similiar way to distributing).
What the software industry has effective done is used the word "license" in the context of 'use' so many times, that people have started to add it to their vocubulary and associated their USE of software with COPYING of software. They are not one and the same.
In the case of TMS, you can't "license" files, even if my previous statement is wrong. What exactly are you licensing? The ability to use it? You have that without the license. The ability to capture the audio and burn a CD? US law lets you do that to. You're even allowed to make a copy and give it to your gradmother.
Don't let coporations trick you into thinking use and copying are one and the same. They aren't. Copyright law should not be extented to use. By using the word license in both contexts for years, copyright holders have slowly been merging the two definitions into one in the minds of the public, so that one day people will say "well of course you need a license to use that" as you seem to have just done.
By clicking reply you agree that you will not copy or paste any of the above or use it in any way.
You misspelled "playback prevention". There is NOTHING about CSS that prevents copying. Make a disk image of the DVD and you have made a copy. Zeros and Ones, that's all it is.
Dude, they wrote the software, it's up to other people to package it and make it easy.
Ease of use starts with the development process. Why clean a mess after it's made rather than before? My impression is that apologist for the lack of ease of use for OSS code seem to think that's someone elses problem that will be resolved Real Soon Now (tm).
"There's no problem with a bunch of people donating time chosing not to support a platform"
Never said there was.
"and they make it easy for someone who _does_ want to support the platform by releasing the code - all that would be required is converting GTK calls into Aqua calls and reimplimenting the libraries."
As Open Office discovered, that's not an easy thing to do. The closest I've seen is in ABIword which one guy has an Aqua version of it "running". It's been in that state for some 2 years now. I commend him for his effort, I'd love to use ABIword on OS X.
"In the meantime they gave you a working solution (install GTK etc - which then gives you access to ALL gtk apps, not just this one) - and you have the temerity to bitch about it?"
I bitch about the claim, not about the effort. When a OS X user reads: "(Insert software name) runs on OS X", they envision it does just like Office X, Quake 3, TaxCut, etc do. Not in the half assed: "Well, if you install these 3rd party GPL GUI libs and an X11 hacked togethor by Apple from OSS software, it will run exactly like a Linux app, isn't that great!!!!". No, that's not great, it's a marvelous hack, but not an OS X app.
"The highly anticipated version 2.0 of the GIMP, due out next month, will run under Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux" I think their definition of running on OS X is different from OS X users definition is. If I have to install GTK, X-Win (iirc isn't default in 10.3), and perhaps a few other GNU libs to make it work, then it doesn't run on OS X. That simple. Not that I care too much.
RANT I think one of the big problems with GNU radicals that make the rest of the OSS advocats look bad is their total lack of care for anything not GPL and their irrational insistence that something like GIMP runs on OS X. It doesn't, it runs under X11 which runs on OS X. A big difference./RANT
"Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I really don't see what the big deal is with Windows Media Player."
Here's a question for you. Why does Microsoft get to determine what comes with a Dell computer? Think about that for a second. Microsoft wants to "improve Windows" for the "consumer", or so the argument goes. I don't see things that way. Imagine a world for a moment where Windows has a standard API interface, disk formats, and drivers, and Dell can put any text editor, any browser, any media player, anything they think the market will stand on top of that. HP does this too, so does IBM. Then when you go to your store to buy a computer, there is choice and it's no longer hardware based, it's OS based.
Once you can differentiate between HP, Dell, IBM, etc, someone can come along and make a new OS, market it. This creates choice, opens up the market.
I really think the simplist solution to the Windows problem is to let a few hardware companies have a perpetual license to the Windows XP source code (as it exists today) that can not be taken away (unless they open source it, or something equally as drastic), give them the right to publish any and all APIs in that source, give them the right to change that source any way they choose, give them the right to set up a standards commity outside of MS, and once the source reaches some magic number of changes (80-95%) from the original licensed source, they code becomes the property of that company and they stop paying MS per copy. Monolopy gone, problem solved.
Inventions. An actual item that can be built in the real world.
Computers that fit a specific task fall in this category. By extension, so does software (which do real world tasks). That is essentially why I'm not totally against software patents. As long as they solve real world problems in a non-obvious way, they are fair game.
"Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of the employees have quite figured this out so I am the only one that can IM with outside people. Rendevous only works on the internal network so they can only chat with other employees."
Thank you for telling me which port to point iChat though so it works. Haven't been able to use it from work for a while now.
"Plus we're not paying people to chat with friends. Funny how project completion times went up after I disabled the port."
I'm guessing that will last forever considering you just posted this to Slashdot, which I assume none of your workers read...
If we were not in graphics & printing, then I would have Linux thin clients that would give empolyees access to only what they need."
You can limit how the OS X Finder works and which apps users are limited to using. Check out "Capabilities" in the Accounts pref pane. I'm sure the workers will love being treated like children that are constantly being watched over.
The installer is painless. Couple next buttons, and three checkboxes (iTunes default media player, Quicktime default movie player, shortcut on desktop) followed by reboot. Interface is pretty much the same as iTunes for OS X. Worked with an off the shelf IDE burner in the machine. Windows users are going to be very happy.
One possible explaination is that the network code will need to be made incompatible to prevent cheaters. APIs may need to me moved around and renamed to prevent see though wall cheaters. Stuff in the code may need to be hidden to make it harder for cheaters to mod the dlls.
"Thats a problem with the application, not the OS. Suppose the industrial application on Linux require root to run?"
There is a difference? Think a moment. From a user point of view, there is no separation between OS and application. Not only that, but Microsoft isn't doing anything in the design of Windows that prevents this, which they should. Windows idea of user space is primative at best. There also seems to be something about Windows developers that encourages them to do this. There is something about this behavior that suggests Windows is fundamentally flawed and it is easier to run applications as admin, than as a limited user.
"Use a Windows 2000 machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd or something similar running, maybe), and keep the thing patched."
It's not uncommon for industrial applications on Windows to require admistrator access to merely run. Any services you turn off, as a result, can be modified by the user or turned back on.
"Software isn't an object. It's information, and you need a licence, a contract to be allowed to copy it. Hence, you're not proving your ownership, but you have to prove that you were entitled to make a copy (install it)."
Based off what version of copyright law? In the states, copyright law is limited to distributation. Meaning, I can buy the new Harry Potter book, copy it, and read the copy instead. Not that it would be of any use to do so, but I could, and I wouldn't be breaking the law. With software, you have additional fun, it's natural function is to be copied. In fact, without copying software, it's useless.
In that sense, it's like saying you need a license for every person that READS a book (since you are copying it to your brain), when reading is the natural function of books.
Better yet, imagine a teacher that has their students write down from a book before doing the problem and as a result the students (or the schools) have to pay a license to do a natural function of being in said class. There would be an uproar. The software industry has merely gotten people used to the idea of licenses as a need for using software. I don't really see how this is permissible.
Licenses is merely a case of contract law. They are usually a contract that limits the rights of the consumer and expand the rights of the producer. They aren't needed to use the software.
"If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water."
I'm not sure what definition of stealing you are using, but it is certainly not one I am aware of. The copyright holder sent to the user an authorized copy of DIVX. So, there's no copyright violation. The user decicides to change the copywrited work that was sent to them, via the removal of adware, which is well within their fair use rights.
If anything, this is a matter of contract law, where the user is most likely violating the "User Agreement". Even in that case, this is akin to someone offering a free radio, the only string attached was inside the box that the radio is contained in is a bag sealed with a sticker saying "By opening this package, you agree that the radio will play advertisements at random, even when the radio is off, over the current station." and in response to it, the user merely opens the radio and removes the chip that has the advertisements. It's his radio, he can do as he wishes with it.
It's the users copy of DIVX, they can do as they wish with it.
"Yeah, the music companies get their blood money, but I'm guessing that none of it reaches the artists."
iTunes Music Store is available to very small labels and even artists via CD Baby. There have also been some reports that artists get a MUCH higher percentage on the downloaded music from Apple than from CDs. E-Musics market model is a bit fuzzy and quite frankly, I'm fascinated they haven't gone under yet.
Regardless, this is nothing more than an excuse to break copyright law, because you don't like how artists are treated. If you feel civil disobedience is the way to go on this issue, more power to you. Make no mistake though, you are breaking the law when you distribute via some p2p network music you don't control the copyright to. Don't be surprised if you get sued. I won't feel sorry for you.
"The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is flat our wrong. There are SEVERAL music services that allow one to download music, burn it to CD, carry it on portable players, and the like. I use two, emusic and iTunes (which appearantly is going to be available for Windows this year).
I get the feeling, that music "sharing" people are only interested in a service if it costs NOTHING. If that is the case there will NEVER be a way to pay artists, since noone wants to pay. Get of your ass, quit downloading music you didn't pay for, and quit bitching.
Slashdot Mirror
"CD is now $17.99, sometimes even $18.99 or $21.99...blown away that they wanted $19.99 for ONE CD"
I must be living in some other universe. I hear these price quotes over and over and I personally rarely pay more than $14 a CD, and $14 is considered a very high price to me. I have over 300 CDs, 200 LPs and about 150 tapes. I buy a CD about once a month or so, usually around $10-12 per album. Of course though, when you listen to bands labels like Dischord (which charges $10/CD), I guess you don't pay much.
On top of this, my very extensive 30s-40s jazz collection on vinyl. I guess children spending their daddy's money on Pop music just don't know better.
Do you expect to find positive statements of the non-existence of this twisted version of contract law? The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders to find postive proof of it's existence.
"It's called a 'contract'."
Contracts, after the acceptance of item, aren't valid. That's the problem. How can one distribute an item with the IMPLIED acceptance of a contract before the contract is accepted? Why are people expected to KNOW the contents of a contract BEFORE the exchange of an item? They can't and it's absured to think they will. It's absurd to accept MONEY before the contract is accepted. Contracts don't work that way.
Which is exactly why someone can't mail you a book and have a license around that book saying if you don't that book back you now owe them some money.
This is especially bad in an age where if you DON'T accept the contract, you don't get your money back because the person who sold you the item says the contract is with the maker of the item and the person who makes the item says to get your money back from the person who sold you the item. Making a nice legal vacuum whereby you lose money and the ability to use the item.
In the case of iTunes, you download the software, which is freely and non-contractually distributed by Apple to you, then if you want to USE the item that you now possess, somehow magically you MUST accept the contract. If you don't accept the contract, then you can't use it? What an odd way to think. Non-accept of the contract means just that, you don't accept ANY terms of the contract, including the part of the contract that says you can't use the item if you don't accept the contract and therefore you keep ALL the rights you had before they tried to force the contract on you.
Contracts are NOT onesided (some States make a VERY strong point of this). They can't even take certain rights away (Warrenties, for example, depending on the State), even if that contract was pounded out in good faith and physically signed in perfect view of both legal teams. Contracts CAN'T take way my right to use an item I have. Period.
"When you started up iTunes, you clicked through a license that spells out what you may do with the songs you purchase. That is the difference between the iTMS and a CD - CDs don't have shrinkwrap licenses."
You have fallen victim to a false way of thinking. You are suggesting, the mere moving of a mouse pointer over a button and clicking is the same as signing a contract. The idea that you "license" software is absolutely NOT supported by US law. Do you license books? A license is needed for distributing copyrighted works. The mere use of copyrighted works is pretty much not covered by copyright law (save for public broadcast, which is treated in a similiar way to distributing).
What the software industry has effective done is used the word "license" in the context of 'use' so many times, that people have started to add it to their vocubulary and associated their USE of software with COPYING of software. They are not one and the same.
In the case of TMS, you can't "license" files, even if my previous statement is wrong. What exactly are you licensing? The ability to use it? You have that without the license. The ability to capture the audio and burn a CD? US law lets you do that to. You're even allowed to make a copy and give it to your gradmother.
Don't let coporations trick you into thinking use and copying are one and the same. They aren't. Copyright law should not be extented to use. By using the word license in both contexts for years, copyright holders have slowly been merging the two definitions into one in the minds of the public, so that one day people will say "well of course you need a license to use that" as you seem to have just done.
By clicking reply you agree that you will not copy or paste any of the above or use it in any way.
(stupid isn't it?)
"copy protection"
You misspelled "playback prevention". There is NOTHING about CSS that prevents copying. Make a disk image of the DVD and you have made a copy. Zeros and Ones, that's all it is.
TotalFarker's give a collective "yeee..." and pull at their shirt collars.
I was just thinking that. Didn't this job origionate from a Fark PS contest in the past few weeks?
Dude, they wrote the software, it's up to other people to package it and make it easy.
Ease of use starts with the development process. Why clean a mess after it's made rather than before? My impression is that apologist for the lack of ease of use for OSS code seem to think that's someone elses problem that will be resolved Real Soon Now (tm).
"There's no problem with a bunch of people donating time chosing not to support a platform"
Never said there was.
"and they make it easy for someone who _does_ want to support the platform by releasing the code - all that would be required is converting GTK calls into Aqua calls and reimplimenting the libraries."
As Open Office discovered, that's not an easy thing to do. The closest I've seen is in ABIword which one guy has an Aqua version of it "running". It's been in that state for some 2 years now. I commend him for his effort, I'd love to use ABIword on OS X.
"In the meantime they gave you a working solution (install GTK etc - which then gives you access to ALL gtk apps, not just this one) - and you have the temerity to bitch about it?"
I bitch about the claim, not about the effort. When a OS X user reads: "(Insert software name) runs on OS X", they envision it does just like Office X, Quake 3, TaxCut, etc do. Not in the half assed: "Well, if you install these 3rd party GPL GUI libs and an X11 hacked togethor by Apple from OSS software, it will run exactly like a Linux app, isn't that great!!!!". No, that's not great, it's a marvelous hack, but not an OS X app.
"The highly anticipated version 2.0 of the GIMP, due out next month, will run under Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux"
/RANT
I think their definition of running on OS X is different from OS X users definition is. If I have to install GTK, X-Win (iirc isn't default in 10.3), and perhaps a few other GNU libs to make it work, then it doesn't run on OS X. That simple. Not that I care too much.
RANT
I think one of the big problems with GNU radicals that make the rest of the OSS advocats look bad is their total lack of care for anything not GPL and their irrational insistence that something like GIMP runs on OS X. It doesn't, it runs under X11 which runs on OS X. A big difference.
"Now, I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I really don't see what the big deal is with Windows Media Player."
Here's a question for you. Why does Microsoft get to determine what comes with a Dell computer? Think about that for a second. Microsoft wants to "improve Windows" for the "consumer", or so the argument goes. I don't see things that way. Imagine a world for a moment where Windows has a standard API interface, disk formats, and drivers, and Dell can put any text editor, any browser, any media player, anything they think the market will stand on top of that. HP does this too, so does IBM. Then when you go to your store to buy a computer, there is choice and it's no longer hardware based, it's OS based.
Once you can differentiate between HP, Dell, IBM, etc, someone can come along and make a new OS, market it. This creates choice, opens up the market.
I really think the simplist solution to the Windows problem is to let a few hardware companies have a perpetual license to the Windows XP source code (as it exists today) that can not be taken away (unless they open source it, or something equally as drastic), give them the right to publish any and all APIs in that source, give them the right to change that source any way they choose, give them the right to set up a standards commity outside of MS, and once the source reaches some magic number of changes (80-95%) from the original licensed source, they code becomes the property of that company and they stop paying MS per copy. Monolopy gone, problem solved.
"A technical drawing is an instruction to build a physical object. A computer program is a series of instructions to perform a given task."
Does that physical object NOT perform a task?! I see no distinction. I see a reinforment of my point.
"It's impossible to draw a firm line therefore "NO SOFTWARE PATENTS" seems like the only sensiable conclusion, to me anyway."
You have made a LARGE logical leap here that is totally unsupported by an reasoning.
"No, because software is math and written language."
How is this any functionally different than a blueprint?
Inventions. An actual item that can be built in the real world.
Computers that fit a specific task fall in this category. By extension, so does software (which do real world tasks). That is essentially why I'm not totally against software patents. As long as they solve real world problems in a non-obvious way, they are fair game.
iTunes online books are though Audible and iTunes lets you burn them to CD.
I was too lazy to lazy to read the article so I used the Summarize feature in OS X to parse the sentences down since it seems a bit wordy.
Okay, maybe I exaggerate a bit here, I did read the article and while the summarize isn't that far off from what these guys are doing...
"Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of the employees have quite figured this out so I am the only one that can IM with outside people. Rendevous only works on the internal network so they can only chat with other employees."
Thank you for telling me which port to point iChat though so it works. Haven't been able to use it from work for a while now.
"Plus we're not paying people to chat with friends. Funny how project completion times went up after I disabled the port."
I'm guessing that will last forever considering you just posted this to Slashdot, which I assume none of your workers read...
If we were not in graphics & printing, then I would have Linux thin clients that would give empolyees access to only what they need."
You can limit how the OS X Finder works and which apps users are limited to using. Check out "Capabilities" in the Accounts pref pane. I'm sure the workers will love being treated like children that are constantly being watched over.
The installer is painless. Couple next buttons, and three checkboxes (iTunes default media player, Quicktime default movie player, shortcut on desktop) followed by reboot. Interface is pretty much the same as iTunes for OS X. Worked with an off the shelf IDE burner in the machine. Windows users are going to be very happy.
"Why would this cause any sort of delay?"
One possible explaination is that the network code will need to be made incompatible to prevent cheaters. APIs may need to me moved around and renamed to prevent see though wall cheaters. Stuff in the code may need to be hidden to make it harder for cheaters to mod the dlls.
Just a guess....
"I really dont want to be locked into a whole platform.
You ARE locked into a platform: x86 based computers.
"Thats a problem with the application, not the OS. Suppose the industrial application on Linux require root to run?"
There is a difference? Think a moment. From a user point of view, there is no separation between OS and application. Not only that, but Microsoft isn't doing anything in the design of Windows that prevents this, which they should. Windows idea of user space is primative at best. There also seems to be something about Windows developers that encourages them to do this. There is something about this behavior that suggests Windows is fundamentally flawed and it is easier to run applications as admin, than as a limited user.
"Use a Windows 2000 machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd or something similar running, maybe), and keep the thing patched."
It's not uncommon for industrial applications on Windows to require admistrator access to merely run. Any services you turn off, as a result, can be modified by the user or turned back on.
"Software isn't an object. It's information, and you need a licence, a contract to be allowed to copy it. Hence, you're not proving your ownership, but you have to prove that you were entitled to make a copy (install it)."
Based off what version of copyright law? In the states, copyright law is limited to distributation. Meaning, I can buy the new Harry Potter book, copy it, and read the copy instead. Not that it would be of any use to do so, but I could, and I wouldn't be breaking the law. With software, you have additional fun, it's natural function is to be copied. In fact, without copying software, it's useless.
In that sense, it's like saying you need a license for every person that READS a book (since you are copying it to your brain), when reading is the natural function of books.
Better yet, imagine a teacher that has their students write down from a book before doing the problem and as a result the students (or the schools) have to pay a license to do a natural function of being in said class. There would be an uproar. The software industry has merely gotten people used to the idea of licenses as a need for using software. I don't really see how this is permissible.
Licenses is merely a case of contract law. They are usually a contract that limits the rights of the consumer and expand the rights of the producer. They aren't needed to use the software.
"If you don't like the distribution model, don't use the software, the argument for stealing it out of distaste for the distribution method instead simply doesn't hold water."
I'm not sure what definition of stealing you are using, but it is certainly not one I am aware of. The copyright holder sent to the user an authorized copy of DIVX. So, there's no copyright violation. The user decicides to change the copywrited work that was sent to them, via the removal of adware, which is well within their fair use rights.
If anything, this is a matter of contract law, where the user is most likely violating the "User Agreement". Even in that case, this is akin to someone offering a free radio, the only string attached was inside the box that the radio is contained in is a bag sealed with a sticker saying "By opening this package, you agree that the radio will play advertisements at random, even when the radio is off, over the current station." and in response to it, the user merely opens the radio and removes the chip that has the advertisements. It's his radio, he can do as he wishes with it.
It's the users copy of DIVX, they can do as they wish with it.
You must work for NASA. Hint, if you want to land on Mars, learn to use only metric...
"Yeah, the music companies get their blood money, but I'm guessing that none of it reaches the artists."
iTunes Music Store is available to very small labels and even artists via CD Baby. There have also been some reports that artists get a MUCH higher percentage on the downloaded music from Apple than from CDs. E-Musics market model is a bit fuzzy and quite frankly, I'm fascinated they haven't gone under yet.
Regardless, this is nothing more than an excuse to break copyright law, because you don't like how artists are treated. If you feel civil disobedience is the way to go on this issue, more power to you. Make no mistake though, you are breaking the law when you distribute via some p2p network music you don't control the copyright to. Don't be surprised if you get sued. I won't feel sorry for you.
"The problem is that there is no adequate system in place that allows music lovers access to their favorite music while compensating artists and copyright holders."
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is flat our wrong. There are SEVERAL music services that allow one to download music, burn it to CD, carry it on portable players, and the like. I use two, emusic and iTunes (which appearantly is going to be available for Windows this year).
I get the feeling, that music "sharing" people are only interested in a service if it costs NOTHING. If that is the case there will NEVER be a way to pay artists, since noone wants to pay. Get of your ass, quit downloading music you didn't pay for, and quit bitching.