If they really don't want people to record by name, actor, director, they also need to sue TV Guide, all the newspapers in the US, movie trivia sites, book authors and publishers, film / entertainment magazines, etc. who also publish this info.
Didn't TV Guide use to have Idiot Codes in their listings? (VCR Plus or something like that?) You know, they somehow encode the channel and time of the show you want to record so that when you want to program your VCR, all you had to do was enter the code? That seems an awful like what ReplayTV is doing, except that ReplayTV is taking it to another level. How come the idiot codes were OK, but ReplayTV isn't?
So, it sounds like the plan here is to make a web site where you fill out a form stating how much control you want to keep over your creative work, and you can print out a license tailored to your needs. Am I getting that right?
IF I am, it seems that these licenses will not have been tested in court. So how useful are they? Will you put your exciting Foo Application in the Commons, only to see BigSoftCorp take it when the license is proved invalid by a technicality?
Not to mention, will the OSF feel the need to approve or dis-approve every single possible combination?
One thing I personally like about John Carmack and id software is that they have a long history of (eventually) releasing their games as open source.
So many software companies (and not just MS, mind you) are content to sell code at full price that they've written years ago and just require periodic maintenance now.
It seems to me that one way to prove beyond a doubt that you have skills it to write a program, make your money off of it over the course of a few years, and then give it away because the stuff you've written since then is actually worth more to people.
I am 100% behind the concept that business should pay what the vendor wants for the software they use, and should be held responsible if they don't. But I find the BSA's methods to be less than agreeable.
Why?
Because it puts the entire burden of proof on your business to prove that you comply.
Because many licensing agreements are overly restrictive and you may not realize you're violating it. (Did you know that Apple's "Free" OS X 10.1 upgrade can only be run on a single computer at a time, according to their boilerplae license? Will the BSA bust you for only getting one copy, even though Apple gave it away for free in CompUSA, and all of your OS X installations are legal?)
Because there is a difference between willful piracy (using 1 license of Office for 100's of workstations) and accidental "piracy" (losing track of the fact that an old, obsolete application is still on your server, and losing the licensing documents from 1992 in your last move).
In short, BSA tactics turn member companies' customers into adversaries, and scare said customers into giving them money rather than go through the time and trouble to "prove" (at the customers' own time and expense!!!) they own all their software. It sure sounds like extortion to me! In any case, I dare someone to argue that threatening to sue ALL your customers and cause them added expenses, even if they did nothing wrong, is a good way to develop a customer relationship!
"we can help content owners create a new business revenue model." Content owners, for example, can start charging consumers every time their digital content is re-distributed within the home, or viewed several times during a certain number of days specified by them.
Call me crazy, but to me, that quote reads:
"We can help content owners create a new business revene model. Content owners can start charging people to do things that used to be free! People will be lining up to pay, because they will be happy to finaly be paying for these things, after having it be free for so long."
Is there something I'm just not getting here? Because to me, it sounds like the Business Plan from Hell, and one that has a snowball's chance of actually working!
The hold up for the Mac has always been other software. For my needs that's all there as well now. There are good ssh clients and terminal emulators.
Remember, OS X (which is what you'll be greeted with upon buying your new iMac Desk Lamp) is Unix under the hood, and ships with telnet and ssh out of the box!
The standard/. dislike of all things governmental is not necessarily mirrored through all geeks.
I'll say. I like the Government! The Government (through DARPA) paid for my Masters' degree. That's Your Tax Dollars At Work, circa 1998. Thank you, taxpaying Geeks!
What's most entertaining about this is that this "Get Out The Vote" E-mail -- I hesitate to call it deliberate vote-rigging -- was found out about because MS Exchange is a bit too loose with the information it gives out in referrer tags. In other words, their technology was used against them.
Is sending out this much information an Exchange-specific thing?
Although I agree that on the surface it would be great to open source, and free up all products that are no longer supported. But wouldn't this cause a trend of people not buying commercial software, and just waiting for them to go out of business so they could get it for free?
That's not necessarily what he's saying. He's saying that software that's obsolete should be opened up. It has nothing to do with the companies going under, although that certainly does cause some software to go obsolete.
Here's a perfect example: When's the last time you heard of a company making money selling Commodore 64 games? The Commodore 64 is a perfect example of an obsolete technology. But even though the technology is obsolete, and for all practical purposes, worthless, the games themselves will be copyrighted for another 90 bazillion years (give or take a few). Even the companies that still exist (like EA) are not making a dime from these games, yet they are still protected. Why? How does that benefit anyone?
If someone "pirates" a Commodore 64 game today, does the SPA consider it a loss for the company at the software's full, 1985 retail price?
Re:But the REAL questions are....
on
Apple PDA?
·
· Score: 2
2. Wireless connectivity (802.11x)?
None of this pay as you stuff or Apple proprietary crap. I want to ba able to connect it to my networks at home and work - seamlessly.
heh. Tell Linksys, Lucent (or whatever company they've spun their wireless stuff into), Dell, etc. that 802.11 is Apple Proprietary. They'll tell you it isn't. AirPort(tm) may be Apple's trademark, and all the nifty Mac Gui stuff to configure it is proprietary, but I assure you that Macs with AirPort can use normal 802.11x access points, and PC's with cards can use AirPort Acess points, both with a minimum of fuss.
The bigger issue is what 802.11 would do to the power requirements of a PDA. Why should you bother using wireless to communicate between a PDA and a computer when the PDA has to be plugged into some sort of cradle to charge, anyway?
Seriously, as an iPod owner, if I end up buying any of these CD's, I won't just return it, I'll send an E-mail to Apple saying that iTunes and my iPod is now useless for me because it won't let me use any new cd's.
After all, hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Steve.
As I've been following this issue over the years, I've been suprised at the parallels between the discussions over firearms and over network security tools and crypto:
Both are considered "weapons" that can be used to "attack" others (or, in the case of crypto, facilitate attacks, although strong crypto is still considered a "weapon" by the government, right?)
Both are also tools that can (and mostly are) be used for legitimate purposes
Both suffer from attacks from their critics who can't differentiate between the inherent goodness/badness of a tool and the goodness/badness of the intent behind the use of the tool.
Both suffer from the radical polarization of viewpoints on both sides of the issue.
The only difference that I see is that we don't have a Constitutional Amendment that says "the right of the people to use BackOrifice shall not be infringed..." Perhaps that's what we need?
I know many people who are pro-"gun rights", and by making these parallels, I've started turning them into pro-"Crypto and Internet Security" people as well. After all, if they passionately believe in the right to defend themselves from the threat that may come through their front door, they will believe in making all the information available for defending from the threat that may come through their cable box!
(I might add that while examining these isues, I've come to understand and sympathise with the pro-"Gun Rights" people a bit more. I still don't agree with all their points, but at least I understand their basic beliefs.)
The correct analogy is if the cashier at a store gives you a $20 instead of the single that you were supposed to get in your change. Or buying a car from someone and finding an expensive watch between the seats.
You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.
Yeah, but if I find that watch in the seat and give it back, do I have to "give back" the identical watch I already own as well?
I already own two copies of 10.0 (one bought retail and one that came with my iBook), as well as two copies of the 10.1 upgrade, (one bought from the Apple Store and one obtained for $.01 from CompUSA). I possess every license I need to run Mac OS 10.1 on BOTH of the Macs in my house. Why am I "stealing" if I use this method to save a step in the installation process if I ever have to reinstall? And why does Apple (and all other Software vendors) automatically assume I'm a thieving, commie Pirate if all I want to do is make a copy to make life easier for myself? Doesn't intent mean anything anymore, or should we outlaw all means to copy anything?
I agree 1000%. I walked into the CompUSA here in Rochester at least three times specifically for the OS X 10.1 upgrade. The last time, a guy with an Apple logo on his shirt on said, "Sorry, we won't be getting any more of those. You'll have to get it directly from Mac." His exact words - he couldn't be bothered to even get the name of the company that gave him the shirt right!
So, I ordered the $20.00 upgrade, which left a bad taste in my mouth after buying both the Beta and the full copy of X 10.0, and seeing them fail to meet my expectations. The week after I got the paid-for upgrade, I went to the CompUSA and they were practially giving them away (although they weren't - you had to pay $.01 for it.)
At least, when all is said and done, OS X 10.1 does finally meet all my expectations, and I rarely have to boot into OS 9 anymore (just when the Palm Desktop is acting up in Classic).
Does Apple really make you agree to the EULA at PURCHASE TIME?
So that's why when I got my "free" upgrade at CompUSA, they went through great pains to charge me exactly $.01 for it! (They said I didn't have to give them the penny, but I did anyway).
Apple usually includes a boilerplate license on a sheet of paper (in several languages) in the box with all their software, and a big red dot on the CD pouch that says "By opening this, you agree to the license". I would imagine that's the earliest point at which you agree.
And the license they included really was a boilerplate, including the part where you can only install it on one computer!?!?!! What did they want me to do, get two "free" copies from CompUSA so I could upgrade my "Smurfy" B&W G3 as well as my iBook? If I installed it on more than one computer, am I liable for triple damages?
How come printed newspapers get more lienency than electronic sites? If the NYT or Washington Post print Top Secret classified information which could KILL people, it's protected under the First Amendment. But, if someone even thinks of explaining how to circumvent a piece of software, it's not protected? Perhaps if it was printed in the newspaper?
If it's printed in the newspaper, the paper may have to print a retraction later, but it's still there. You could get an old copy of that paper from the library and read the article in question in all its glory. No one would dream of going to ALL the libraries and ripping out that article.
On the other hand, if it's printed online, it's often a much simpler matter to not just issue a retraction, but go through the Web Site's archives and redact and/or eliminate the article in question so you don't even know it existed.
Let's hope it was up long enough for Google to cache it!
Situations like this are going to bring about an eventual world government.
Microsoft: We are your merchant. We are your church. We are your state.
Interesting sig for your post. Imagine...
I pledge allegiance, to the Box, of the United Software of Microsoft. And to the EULA, with which we consent, one Platform, Under Gates, Universal, telling us where we want to go today.
In my opinion, regional domain names do not really make sense, since the whole point about internet is its global reach.
Except that current laws are very country-specific, even if the Internet isn't. Trademark law, in particular. can vary in teeny bits from country to country. Having country-specific domain names (where disputes could be governed under the rules of that country) could lead to easier resolution of disputes. (Of course, it doesn't in practice, and we're back to Square 1).
too bad i would have enjoyed making a modified chip myself, i mean how hard can it be ?? you would only need a fab plant, and those are aval. at the cornor drugstore! I mean really guys it's just like altering game software. : )
Actually, all you need is an Eval board from Xilinx, Altera, or any other FPGA vendor with a chip that's big enough to put it on. I have a few older ones lying around my office, but they probably aren't big enough.
These FPGA's can be a good platform for knowledgeable hobbyists, specifically because they can be re-programmed if you're working on something else. Of course, all the new ones are fine-pitch ball grids, which have so many small pins that you're not going to solder it onto your hobbyist's breadboard anytime soon.
Now if only they did their core in VHDL, I might be interested!
It has only 5 gigs, according to the Spec sheet. Of course, perhaps that's wrong...
As for transfering files, it is my understanding that in Idiot Mode (which Apple calls Default Mode), the iPod can only synch with one primary computer at a time. you can operate the device from within iTunes in non-idiot mode, which gives you more flexability.
No corporation really cares about the evils of closed file formats until they get in the way. Besides, how are any pitches going to be made without PowerPoint?
For what it's worth, there's also PDF. Any presentation-building tool that can print out in PDF will be readable on vitrually any computer, with no problems.
I went to Japan recently for a project. I put together my sllides in Powerpoint , but had a colleague put them in PDF format before handing the disk over to get copies and overheads made, and they worked out great. I could have used any tool to put them together, as long as Acrobat could make a PDF out of it. Another colleague gave the Powerpoint file, and the Japanese computers didn't have his fonts, so it looked ugly.
But I forgot, PDF presentations don't have embedded sound, movies, or stupid curved Word-Art. That seems to be all that's in all of the non-technical presentations I get to see lately.
Second, expect the RIAA (and Apple Records) to SUE THE PANTS off of Apple!
Why? There are lots of these things out there. The industry lost to Creative years ago.
Because Apple Records sued Apple Computer over trademark infringement, and settled when Apple Computer said it was in the Computer business, and would never go into the Music business!
The sucess of this product relies on CD's ripped through iTunes, and the existence of this product means that Apple will have to fight any legal resrctions on ripping CDs that the RIAA may try to buy in congress. Therefore, I predict the RIAA will sue, to avoid having a big company lobby against them in congress, and offering a "legitimate" view (i.e. non-Napsterized) of how their bought-and-paid-for laws will restrict technology.
After all, if someone can "hotsync" their 5GB of MP3's between their home computer and their work computer, that could be making an illegal copy, and the RIAA won't stand for that. They'll use any legal means necessary, including resurrecting the long-dead trademark dispute. (I'm sure that Apple Records is a member of the RIAA).
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't TV Guide use to have Idiot Codes in their listings? (VCR Plus or something like that?) You know, they somehow encode the channel and time of the show you want to record so that when you want to program your VCR, all you had to do was enter the code? That seems an awful like what ReplayTV is doing, except that ReplayTV is taking it to another level. How come the idiot codes were OK, but ReplayTV isn't?
IF I am, it seems that these licenses will not have been tested in court. So how useful are they? Will you put your exciting Foo Application in the Commons, only to see BigSoftCorp take it when the license is proved invalid by a technicality?
Not to mention, will the OSF feel the need to approve or dis-approve every single possible combination?
So many software companies (and not just MS, mind you) are content to sell code at full price that they've written years ago and just require periodic maintenance now.
It seems to me that one way to prove beyond a doubt that you have skills it to write a program, make your money off of it over the course of a few years, and then give it away because the stuff you've written since then is actually worth more to people.
Why?
In short, BSA tactics turn member companies' customers into adversaries, and scare said customers into giving them money rather than go through the time and trouble to "prove" (at the customers' own time and expense!!!) they own all their software. It sure sounds like extortion to me! In any case, I dare someone to argue that threatening to sue ALL your customers and cause them added expenses, even if they did nothing wrong, is a good way to develop a customer relationship!
Call me crazy, but to me, that quote reads:
"We can help content owners create a new business revene model. Content owners can start charging people to do things that used to be free! People will be lining up to pay, because they will be happy to finaly be paying for these things, after having it be free for so long."
Is there something I'm just not getting here? Because to me, it sounds like the Business Plan from Hell, and one that has a snowball's chance of actually working!
Remember, OS X (which is what you'll be greeted with upon buying your new iMac Desk Lamp) is Unix under the hood, and ships with telnet and ssh out of the box!
This ain't the Mac OS you remember!
I'll say. I like the Government! The Government (through DARPA) paid for my Masters' degree. That's Your Tax Dollars At Work, circa 1998. Thank you, taxpaying Geeks!
Is sending out this much information an Exchange-specific thing?
That's not necessarily what he's saying. He's saying that software that's obsolete should be opened up. It has nothing to do with the companies going under, although that certainly does cause some software to go obsolete.
Here's a perfect example: When's the last time you heard of a company making money selling Commodore 64 games? The Commodore 64 is a perfect example of an obsolete technology. But even though the technology is obsolete, and for all practical purposes, worthless, the games themselves will be copyrighted for another 90 bazillion years (give or take a few). Even the companies that still exist (like EA) are not making a dime from these games, yet they are still protected. Why? How does that benefit anyone?
If someone "pirates" a Commodore 64 game today, does the SPA consider it a loss for the company at the software's full, 1985 retail price?
None of this pay as you stuff or Apple proprietary crap. I want to ba able to connect it to my networks at home and work - seamlessly.
heh. Tell Linksys, Lucent (or whatever company they've spun their wireless stuff into), Dell, etc. that 802.11 is Apple Proprietary. They'll tell you it isn't. AirPort(tm) may be Apple's trademark, and all the nifty Mac Gui stuff to configure it is proprietary, but I assure you that Macs with AirPort can use normal 802.11x access points, and PC's with cards can use AirPort Acess points, both with a minimum of fuss.
The bigger issue is what 802.11 would do to the power requirements of a PDA. Why should you bother using wireless to communicate between a PDA and a computer when the PDA has to be plugged into some sort of cradle to charge, anyway?
Seriously, as an iPod owner, if I end up buying any of these CD's, I won't just return it, I'll send an E-mail to Apple saying that iTunes and my iPod is now useless for me because it won't let me use any new cd's.
After all, hell hath no fury like a pissed-off Steve.
Both are considered "weapons" that can be used to "attack" others (or, in the case of crypto, facilitate attacks, although strong crypto is still considered a "weapon" by the government, right?)
Both are also tools that can (and mostly are) be used for legitimate purposes
Both suffer from attacks from their critics who can't differentiate between the inherent goodness/badness of a tool and the goodness/badness of the intent behind the use of the tool.
Both suffer from the radical polarization of viewpoints on both sides of the issue.
The only difference that I see is that we don't have a Constitutional Amendment that says "the right of the people to use BackOrifice shall not be infringed..." Perhaps that's what we need?
I know many people who are pro-"gun rights", and by making these parallels, I've started turning them into pro-"Crypto and Internet Security" people as well. After all, if they passionately believe in the right to defend themselves from the threat that may come through their front door, they will believe in making all the information available for defending from the threat that may come through their cable box!
(I might add that while examining these isues, I've come to understand and sympathise with the pro-"Gun Rights" people a bit more. I still don't agree with all their points, but at least I understand their basic beliefs.)
what suprises me the most about this is not that the secret service is reading Kuro5hin, but that they're taking what they read there seriously....
If they really think they're getting good leads from there, perhaps they could donate a new server to Rusty to bring it back up!
You inadvertently receive something you didn't pay for. Keeping it (or similarly, installing it without paying for a copy) is stealing.
Yeah, but if I find that watch in the seat and give it back, do I have to "give back" the identical watch I already own as well?
I already own two copies of 10.0 (one bought retail and one that came with my iBook), as well as two copies of the 10.1 upgrade, (one bought from the Apple Store and one obtained for $.01 from CompUSA). I possess every license I need to run Mac OS 10.1 on BOTH of the Macs in my house. Why am I "stealing" if I use this method to save a step in the installation process if I ever have to reinstall? And why does Apple (and all other Software vendors) automatically assume I'm a thieving, commie Pirate if all I want to do is make a copy to make life easier for myself? Doesn't intent mean anything anymore, or should we outlaw all means to copy anything?
I agree 1000%. I walked into the CompUSA here in Rochester at least three times specifically for the OS X 10.1 upgrade. The last time, a guy with an Apple logo on his shirt on said, "Sorry, we won't be getting any more of those. You'll have to get it directly from Mac." His exact words - he couldn't be bothered to even get the name of the company that gave him the shirt right!
So, I ordered the $20.00 upgrade, which left a bad taste in my mouth after buying both the Beta and the full copy of X 10.0, and seeing them fail to meet my expectations. The week after I got the paid-for upgrade, I went to the CompUSA and they were practially giving them away (although they weren't - you had to pay $.01 for it.)
At least, when all is said and done, OS X 10.1 does finally meet all my expectations, and I rarely have to boot into OS 9 anymore (just when the Palm Desktop is acting up in Classic).
So that's why when I got my "free" upgrade at CompUSA, they went through great pains to charge me exactly $.01 for it! (They said I didn't have to give them the penny, but I did anyway).
Apple usually includes a boilerplate license on a sheet of paper (in several languages) in the box with all their software, and a big red dot on the CD pouch that says "By opening this, you agree to the license". I would imagine that's the earliest point at which you agree.
And the license they included really was a boilerplate, including the part where you can only install it on one computer!?!?!! What did they want me to do, get two "free" copies from CompUSA so I could upgrade my "Smurfy" B&W G3 as well as my iBook? If I installed it on more than one computer, am I liable for triple damages?
If it's printed in the newspaper, the paper may have to print a retraction later, but it's still there. You could get an old copy of that paper from the library and read the article in question in all its glory. No one would dream of going to ALL the libraries and ripping out that article.
On the other hand, if it's printed online, it's often a much simpler matter to not just issue a retraction, but go through the Web Site's archives and redact and/or eliminate the article in question so you don't even know it existed.
Let's hope it was up long enough for Google to cache it!
I'd mod you up if there was a (+1, tasteless) option!
Microsoft: We are your merchant. We are your church. We are your state.
Interesting sig for your post. Imagine...
I pledge allegiance, to the Box, of the United Software of Microsoft. And to the EULA, with which we consent, one Platform, Under Gates, Universal, telling us where we want to go today.
Except that current laws are very country-specific, even if the Internet isn't. Trademark law, in particular. can vary in teeny bits from country to country. Having country-specific domain names (where disputes could be governed under the rules of that country) could lead to easier resolution of disputes. (Of course, it doesn't in practice, and we're back to Square 1).
Actually, all you need is an Eval board from Xilinx, Altera, or any other FPGA vendor with a chip that's big enough to put it on. I have a few older ones lying around my office, but they probably aren't big enough.
These FPGA's can be a good platform for knowledgeable hobbyists, specifically because they can be re-programmed if you're working on something else. Of course, all the new ones are fine-pitch ball grids, which have so many small pins that you're not going to solder it onto your hobbyist's breadboard anytime soon.
Now if only they did their core in VHDL, I might be interested!
Road Runner doesn't "Support" Linux either, but that hasn't stopped me.
As for transfering files, it is my understanding that in Idiot Mode (which Apple calls Default Mode), the iPod can only synch with one primary computer at a time. you can operate the device from within iTunes in non-idiot mode, which gives you more flexability.
For what it's worth, there's also PDF. Any presentation-building tool that can print out in PDF will be readable on vitrually any computer, with no problems.
I went to Japan recently for a project. I put together my sllides in Powerpoint , but had a colleague put them in PDF format before handing the disk over to get copies and overheads made, and they worked out great. I could have used any tool to put them together, as long as Acrobat could make a PDF out of it. Another colleague gave the Powerpoint file, and the Japanese computers didn't have his fonts, so it looked ugly.
But I forgot, PDF presentations don't have embedded sound, movies, or stupid curved Word-Art. That seems to be all that's in all of the non-technical presentations I get to see lately.
Why? There are lots of these things out there. The industry lost to Creative years ago.
Because Apple Records sued Apple Computer over trademark infringement, and settled when Apple Computer said it was in the Computer business, and would never go into the Music business!
The sucess of this product relies on CD's ripped through iTunes, and the existence of this product means that Apple will have to fight any legal resrctions on ripping CDs that the RIAA may try to buy in congress. Therefore, I predict the RIAA will sue, to avoid having a big company lobby against them in congress, and offering a "legitimate" view (i.e. non-Napsterized) of how their bought-and-paid-for laws will restrict technology.
After all, if someone can "hotsync" their 5GB of MP3's between their home computer and their work computer, that could be making an illegal copy, and the RIAA won't stand for that. They'll use any legal means necessary, including resurrecting the long-dead trademark dispute. (I'm sure that Apple Records is a member of the RIAA).