You didn't read the question I was responding to. My point is that the encryption scheme did not exist to get companies to join the DVD consortium, but to provide copy protection.
Yes, this means I'm making allot of use of the public library, local book stores, and local theaters and comedy clubs.
I just flew in from Cleveland, and boy are my arms tired. Thank you! Tip your waitresses! I'll be at the Funny Bone in Omaha next week! Drive safely...
The idea was to prevent the wholesale copying of DVDs like the CD problem they have in Asia.
There are some patent issues if you wanted to manufacture a DVD player and didn't license the appropriate patents, but itwould be far easier to just sue you, rather than going through this encryption stuff.
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
The answer to this stumper, teach, is that in your world without IP protection, there wouldn't be closed-source products, by definition.
Oh really? How are you going to do that? Forbid upon pain of death the release of binary files?
As for "commercial" products, GPLed code *can* be used in those.
I understand that. I probably should have said proprietary there.
The point is, GPL advocates use the GPL as a means to a goal. The goal isn't "a world where no one can make any money in the software business"
No, its just a side effect. Probably the full sentence should be "a world were no one can make money writing code, but can selling support" right? Damn I get tired of hearing that. (You know, if I wanted to support for a living, I'd work on a help desk.)
Re:God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
I can't resist one last shot. (Deep breath..)
First, intellectual "property" is not the same as physical property. Copying someone's intellectual property does not deprive them of the use of that property the way stealing physical property would. Any argument based on that supposed analogy is immediately suspect.
I disagree totally. The one element in determining the value of something is scarcity. In this case IP is exactly like physical property. By distributing someone else's IP without their permission you are reducing the scarcity of that item and reducing its value.
Second, as copying becomes easier with the advance of technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce copyrights without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
OK lets replace a few words in this sentence... try: Second, as forgery becomes easier with the advance fo technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce contracts without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
Sounds a little sillier, doesn't it? If murder becuase quick and easy (not that it isn't) would you no longer attempt to uphold those laws as well?
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Interesting response... A few points... Religion is a faint glimmer of what it once was. The church in fact has already fallen, did so a couple hundred years ago as a result of this thing called the Age of Reason, you may have heard of it?
I dare say there are more people with religious conviction alive right now that at any other point in history in absolute numbers. Not bad for a dead institution (not that I am one of them)
Intellectual Property is obviously experiencing some rather serious upheaval, or we wouldn't be talking about it here, or using OSS software for that matter. I consider OSS to be a kind of backlash against the current IP model.
OK class todays essay question is: In a world without IP protection, how do you protect someone from using your code in a commercial product? You can't. OSS seems intimately tied to IP in my mind.
Maybe you just can't read. Which part of "just an example, don't go there;)" was difficult to comprehend? I'm not seriously proposing we abandon money, fuck, it makes the world go round. As long as it keeps my bong packed and my car running you won't hear me complain too loudly:) Sorry, my sarcasm-meter is out this week, I'll try to get a replacement from the shop in the meantime.:)
Yeah, the current monetary system works great. I'll be sure to tell that to the next guy who bums change off me to avoid sobriety.
Surely you aren't suggesting that IP is to blame for the fact that some people are unable to live responsibly?
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 3
Man, crap like this gets marked insightful?
If I put random words in BOLD will I get marked up too?
But enough of my rants, lets look at yours:
The reason our cherished institutions (religion, government, intellectual property, etc.) are crumbling around us is because They Are No Longer Relevant. It's as simple as that.
Lets see here more people attend religious services now than at any point in the last 20 years, democracy is spreading around the world, and more patents and trademarks are applied for everyday. Do you have any evidence that religion, govt and IP are crumbling around us? Looks like they are doing fine to me.
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free.
If you can make a living giving things away for free, more power to you. Why don't these Lunix companies give away support along with their software too? Here's a hint.. bankrupcy.
Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there;).
Yawn. Ideas like this are stupid, that's why they are never acted on. Got any suggestions for how to replace a money based economy? Didn't think so. Smarter people that you have tried and not thought of one either. (Not that that is a bad thing, since the current system works fine.)
Re:God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
. I have tons (95%) of legal MP3s which would get flagged and I would get in trouble for. Is this what you want?
No, I have tons of legal MP3s myself. But I'm not dumb enough to put them on a web server.
Now maybe its just my interpretation, but I don't see "limited" as meaning "life + 95 years".
I would suggest that life + 95 years is a perfectly legitimate definition of limited. In fact, anything less than eternity would seem to fit the definition.
Is it wrong if I listen to something you own, without you knowing, without you noticing, and without ANY cost to you whatsoever? It is wrong for you to cry to the police when such a thing happens because (~whiny brat voice) That's MY music!!! (/~wbv).
Yes, if I do not give you permission to listen to something I own, reguardless of cost to me, it is still wrong. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. If I don't care I will put something out under GPL / or some less restricitive license. Copywriting something is saying exactly "You have no rights to this other than what I give to you". Forcing someone to share the fruits of their labors is the first step down a very slippery slope.
Re:God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Well, here we go:
Enlighten us. What is their "case or legitimate point" for demanding that all MP3s be removed from campus networks without any proof that any of them infringe any copyrights?
Well, since unsigned bands aren't represented by the RIAA, I'm sure they don't care about those MP3s. Obviously they are going after pirated music, which is their right under the law. So some kids who are stupid enough to put their music warez or whatever they call them are going to get smacked. Good. Just becuase you disagree with the concept of IP doesn't mean you can ignore the law.
What is their case for demanding that products with legitimate, legal uses be pulled from the market or crippled because they "might" be used to illegally copy copyrighted material?
Silly me, I thought private companies had the right to make whatever agreements between each other they wanted to. If a company is making products that don't fail some legal test, why shouldn't they go to court to stop those items from being distributed?
)? What is thier case for demanding that they be allowed to keep their copyrights for over 4 times the length of time originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution?
There is no time limit for copyrights mentioned int the US Consitution.
? What is their case for continuing to own a copyright decades after the person who did the actual creative work is dead; for that matter, what is their case for being entitled to nearly a century of profits for work done by someone else?
Why shouldn't a person's estate be allowed to profit from the person's work?
I'm going to skip your middle paragraph.
In this case, I think it is clear that there are some fairly negative consequences to the copyright laws as they stand; viz., they produce a chilling effect on legitimate uses of technology, and due to the long copyright terms, the copyrighted material is effectively never given back to the public domain, as was originally intended
That's funny I see a whole bunch of stuff at say, Project Gutenberg, that is PD.
If these reforms mean that record executives will wind up making only 5 times instead of 100 times the median household income,
Ah, I knew this would come down to this in the end. The "wah, they charge too much for music so I am going to steal it" argument. Look, you don't have the right to other peoples things, and its wrong to take things without permission. My mom taught me this when I was like, 3 years old. I guess such an idea is far to antiquated in today's soceity.
God this section of Slashdot gets old quick...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 0
Let me provide a quick summary of every YRO article ever written, and every one to be written until the end of time...
Giant impersonal corporation is trying to screw you. Nope, they never have a case or a legitmiate point, they are just trying to give you the bone.
Thank god for user preferences, I'm never reading another article of this crap again.
! Are modern weapons! Destroy cities just like that! A bombs have nothing on H bombs! ICBMs have H bombs in them1 And a little a bomb to start the reaction! Hooray! Ut!
Who, for the love of Jesus, would write a Direct3D app in Visual Basic????? (which is the only reason for the COM-based architechture...)
Boy, and I thought you knew what you were talking about up to that point. I mean, its not like you can use COM objects from say, C++, or Java, or PERL, or any other language...
...this could be good for the "emergency cell phone to keep in the glove compartment so if stranded in the middle of Nebraska in a snow storm you don't have to pull a Donner party" scenario.
What's next? Sueing every software manufacturer who has a WIMP interface, since people with no hands can't use a mouse. This is the same act that leads to us having braile at drive up ATMs (think about that one for a minute...)
..than seeing people try to make money off of the work of other people. Thankfully, the Linux community has proven that they are just as resourceful as the rest of us at that too.
That's funny, I can think of why sales are low for the exact same reasons...
1) Community -- The Free Software / Open Source crowd don't like software that doesn't generally like or support closed source software such as the type Loki releases.
2) Competition -- There would certainly be more compeittion of there was a lot of demand. Economics teaches us that people don't leave $20 bills lying on the sidewalk.
3) The desktop argument -- Linux runs lots of servers... those don't need games. Why would the average Linux user buy more games the average other OS user?
I've heard that they aren't telling. Someone on Linux Today speculated that it's because they don't want the other game vendors to realize what a lucrative market Linux games is.
Of course, I don't have to tell you what the other possibility is, do I?
I feel I am somewhat qualified to make a comment on this subject, I have a master's degree in accounting, among other things.
This guy is on crack. This guy lists a long series of things MS is allegidly doing "wrong" and only one has any basis in fact and MS was already fined for it. As for the rest of it (So what if MS talks its employees into taking part of their wages in Stock options? Perfectly legal and legitimate. Yes, there is a good reason these aren't recorded on the balance sheet of a company.... Generally Accepted Accounting Priniciples don't require it, no other company reports them there either) it is largly a list of semi-legitimate sounding financial and accounting buzzwords with nothing to back it up. Probably impresses the ignorent (just look at all the comments above), but the SEC guys probably shoot their beverage of choice out of their noses when this guy comes around.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I suppose you would support reduced sentences if you killed someone you really, really liked?
You didn't read the question I was responding to. My point is that the encryption scheme did not exist to get companies to join the DVD consortium, but to provide copy protection.
Yes, this means I'm making allot of use of the public library, local book stores, and local theaters and comedy clubs.
I just flew in from Cleveland, and boy are my arms tired. Thank you! Tip your waitresses! I'll be at the Funny Bone in Omaha next week! Drive safely...
No, you are wrong.
The idea was to prevent the wholesale copying of DVDs like the CD problem they have in Asia.
There are some patent issues if you wanted to manufacture a DVD player and didn't license the appropriate patents, but itwould be far easier to just sue you, rather than going through this encryption stuff.
The answer to this stumper, teach, is that in your world without IP protection, there wouldn't be closed-source products, by definition.
Oh really? How are you going to do that? Forbid upon pain of death the release of binary files?
As for "commercial" products, GPLed code *can* be used in those.
I understand that. I probably should have said proprietary there.
The point is, GPL advocates use the GPL as a means to a goal. The goal isn't "a world where no one can make any money in the software business"
No, its just a side effect. Probably the full sentence should be "a world were no one can make money writing code, but can selling support" right? Damn I get tired of hearing that. (You know, if I wanted to support for a living, I'd work on a help desk.)
I can't resist one last shot. (Deep breath..)
First, intellectual "property" is not the same as physical property. Copying someone's intellectual property does not deprive them of the use of that property the way stealing physical property would. Any argument based on that supposed analogy is immediately suspect.
I disagree totally. The one element in determining the value of something is scarcity. In this case IP is exactly like physical property. By distributing someone else's IP without their permission you are reducing the scarcity of that item and reducing its value.
Second, as copying becomes easier with the advance of technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce copyrights without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
OK lets replace a few words in this sentence... try: Second, as forgery becomes easier with the advance fo technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce contracts without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
Sounds a little sillier, doesn't it? If murder becuase quick and easy (not that it isn't) would you no longer attempt to uphold those laws as well?
Interesting response... A few points...
;)" was difficult to comprehend? I'm not seriously proposing we abandon money, fuck, it makes the world go round. As long as it keeps my bong packed and my car running you won't hear me complain too loudly :) :)
Religion is a faint glimmer of what it once was. The church in fact has already fallen, did so a couple hundred years ago as a result of this thing called the Age of Reason, you may have heard of it?
I dare say there are more people with religious conviction alive right now that at any other point in history in absolute numbers. Not bad for a dead institution (not that I am one of them)
Intellectual Property is obviously experiencing some rather serious upheaval, or we wouldn't be talking about it here, or using OSS software for that matter. I consider OSS to be a kind of backlash against the current IP model.
OK class todays essay question is: In a world without IP protection, how do you protect someone from using your code in a commercial product? You can't. OSS seems intimately tied to IP in my mind.
Maybe you just can't read. Which part of "just an example, don't go there
Sorry, my sarcasm-meter is out this week, I'll try to get a replacement from the shop in the meantime.
Yeah, the current monetary system works great. I'll be sure to tell that to the next guy who bums change off me to avoid sobriety.
Surely you aren't suggesting that IP is to blame for the fact that some people are unable to live responsibly?
Man, crap like this gets marked insightful?
;).
If I put random words in BOLD will I get marked up too?
But enough of my rants, lets look at yours:
The reason our cherished institutions (religion, government, intellectual property, etc.) are crumbling around us is because They Are No Longer Relevant. It's as simple as that.
Lets see here more people attend religious services now than at any point in the last 20 years, democracy is spreading around the world, and more patents and trademarks are applied for everyday. Do you have any evidence that religion, govt and IP are crumbling around us? Looks like they are doing fine to me.
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free.
If you can make a living giving things away for free, more power to you. Why don't these Lunix companies give away support along with their software too? Here's a hint.. bankrupcy.
Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there
Yawn. Ideas like this are stupid, that's why they are never acted on. Got any suggestions for how to replace a money based economy? Didn't think so. Smarter people that you have tried and not thought of one either. (Not that that is a bad thing, since the current system works fine.)
. I have tons (95%) of legal MP3s which would get flagged and I would get in trouble for. Is this what you want?
No, I have tons of legal MP3s myself. But I'm not dumb enough to put them on a web server.
Now maybe its just my interpretation, but I don't see "limited" as meaning "life + 95 years".
I would suggest that life + 95 years is a perfectly legitimate definition of limited. In fact, anything less than eternity would seem to fit the definition.
Is it wrong if I listen to something you own, without you knowing, without you noticing, and without ANY cost to you whatsoever? It is wrong for you to cry to the police when such a thing happens because (~whiny brat voice) That's MY music!!! (/~wbv).
Yes, if I do not give you permission to listen to something I own, reguardless of cost to me, it is still wrong. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. If I don't care I will put something out under GPL / or some less restricitive license. Copywriting something is saying exactly "You have no rights to this other than what I give to you". Forcing someone to share the fruits of their labors is the first step down a very slippery slope.
Well, here we go:
Enlighten us. What is their "case or legitimate point" for demanding that all MP3s be removed from campus networks without any proof that any of them infringe any copyrights?
Well, since unsigned bands aren't represented by the RIAA, I'm sure they don't care about those MP3s. Obviously they are going after pirated music, which is their right under the law. So some kids who are stupid enough to put their music warez or whatever they call them are going to get smacked. Good. Just becuase you disagree with the concept of IP doesn't mean you can ignore the law.
What is their case for demanding that products with legitimate, legal uses be pulled from the market or crippled because they "might" be used to illegally copy copyrighted material?
Silly me, I thought private companies had the right to make whatever agreements between each other they wanted to. If a company is making products that don't fail some legal test, why shouldn't they go to court to stop those items from being distributed?
)? What is thier case for demanding that they be allowed to keep their copyrights for over 4 times the length of time originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution?
There is no time limit for copyrights mentioned int the US Consitution.
? What is their case for continuing to own a copyright decades after the person who did the actual creative work is dead; for that matter, what is their case for being entitled to nearly a century of profits for work done by someone else?
Why shouldn't a person's estate be allowed to profit from the person's work?
I'm going to skip your middle paragraph.
In this case, I think it is clear that there are some fairly negative consequences to the copyright laws as they stand; viz., they produce a chilling effect on legitimate uses of technology, and due to the long copyright terms, the copyrighted material is effectively never given back to the public domain, as was originally intended
That's funny I see a whole bunch of stuff at say, Project Gutenberg, that is PD.
If these reforms mean that record executives will wind up making only 5 times
instead of 100 times the median household income,
Ah, I knew this would come down to this in the end. The "wah, they charge too much for music so I am going to steal it" argument. Look, you don't have the right to other peoples things, and its wrong to take things without permission. My mom taught me this when I was like, 3 years old. I guess such an idea is far to antiquated in today's soceity.
Let me provide a quick summary of every YRO article ever written, and every one to be written until the end of time...
Giant impersonal corporation is trying to screw you. Nope, they never have a case or a legitmiate point, they are just trying to give you the bone.
Thank god for user preferences, I'm never reading another article of this crap again.
! Are modern weapons! Destroy cities just like that! A bombs have nothing on H bombs! ICBMs have H bombs in them1 And a little a bomb to start the reaction! Hooray! Ut!
Good to see flaming carrot posting on slashdot.
- I hear a lot of Microsoft money changed hands (i.e. bribes to local gov't officials, "donations" to government offices) in order to do these raids.
You know, I hear you molest cats. That's the thing about rumors, they are rarely true.
You wouldn't think an Open Source project would need to engage in "Spinning" would you? Another first for the Mozilla team.
Who, for the love of Jesus, would write a Direct3D app in Visual Basic????? (which is the only reason for the COM-based architechture...)
Boy, and I thought you knew what you were talking about up to that point. I mean, its not like you can use COM objects from say, C++, or Java, or PERL, or any other language...
...this could be good for the "emergency cell phone to keep in the glove compartment so if stranded in the middle of Nebraska in a snow storm you don't have to pull a Donner party" scenario.
What's next? Sueing every software manufacturer who has a WIMP interface, since people with no hands can't use a mouse. This is the same act that leads to us having braile at drive up ATMs (think about that one for a minute...)
..than seeing people try to make money off of the work of other people. Thankfully, the Linux community has proven that they are just as resourceful as the rest of us at that too.
I didn't say you weren't free to dislike it. YOu must have misread my post.
Let's see its their computers, they should be able to delete whatever they want for whatever reason they want. What's the big deal?
I don't care if you know what I'm listening to or ripping. I think you make a good product. Don't let the black helicopter crowd worry you.
"You have no privacy, get over it" -- Scott McNealy
What the hell are you talking about? If you purchase RealJukebox you get all rates up to 300kbps, and ultra cool VBR encoding to boot.
Now just to kick back and watch the stock price go up up up!
That's funny, I can think of why sales are low for the exact same reasons...
1) Community -- The Free Software / Open Source crowd don't like software that doesn't generally like or support closed source software such as the type Loki releases.
2) Competition -- There would certainly be more compeittion of there was a lot of demand. Economics teaches us that people don't leave $20 bills lying on the sidewalk.
3) The desktop argument -- Linux runs lots of servers... those don't need games. Why would the average Linux user buy more games the average other OS user?
4) Pend up demand -- see #2.
I've heard that they aren't telling. Someone on Linux Today speculated that it's because they don't want the other game vendors to realize what a lucrative market Linux games is.
Of course, I don't have to tell you what the other possibility is, do I?
I feel I am somewhat qualified to make a comment on this subject, I have a master's degree in accounting, among other things.
This guy is on crack. This guy lists a long series of things MS is allegidly doing "wrong" and only one has any basis in fact and MS was already fined for it. As for the rest of it (So what if MS talks its employees into taking part of their wages in Stock options? Perfectly legal and legitimate. Yes, there is a good reason these aren't recorded on the balance sheet of a company.... Generally Accepted Accounting Priniciples don't require it, no other company reports them there either) it is largly a list of semi-legitimate sounding financial and accounting buzzwords with nothing to back it up. Probably impresses the ignorent (just look at all the comments above), but the SEC guys probably shoot their beverage of choice out of their noses when this guy comes around.
In conclusion, lay of the crackpipe, dude.