people are still registering for massive numbers of accounts. "As far as I can tell, they're just doing it by hand. They're sitting there all day doing it by hand," he said. So he's considering changing the registration test to a simple arithmetic problem. It won't stop the mass registrations, but he might be able to get the abusers to perform distributed computing tasks for him.
HAH! That is really clever. Of course there isn't much computing power there, and if Yahoo! did harness it they would resell it and/or generally become sleazy about it, but at first blush, that's pretty funny. He should patent it (ha ha).
If he wanted to help grandma read, he would bring some books from the local library and get grandma some warm tea and a bright light.
Dear billstr78:
My name is Jim Shyster, and I represent Global Tetrahedron Publishing, the largest book publisher in the world. It has come to our attention that you are distributing instructions describing how to circumvent the patented access control device which protects our valuable printed content.
Our patented access control system, which is sold under various names, including Darkness(tm), NoLight(R), and Hey-I-Can't-See(tm), is an effective system for protecting copyrighted works from unauthorized duplication and use. Over 10,000 man-hours have gone into developing this popular system, which is licensed to thousands of usersworldwide.
Your description clearly outlines a method for circumventing this system, by use of a "bright light", in violation of US copyright law, specifically Code Title 17, Ch. 12, Sec. 1201. The reading license in our books states that only our NightVision(R) Glasses can be used to read these books in an otherwise darkened room, which are available from our distributors for $199.99. A reader may also purchase a Perpetual Sunshine License ($1,999) which grants members of a household the right to read outdoors, under solar illumination, at any time. These are the only authorized uses of our products.
You might also note the section of the license that forbids license holders from using public libraries or any other system of "free" or "unauthorized" reading, lending, or copying; in order to prevent book piracy.
We trust that you will remove the infringing material within 7 days.
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well,
virtual.
Yeah, but if you have an analog copy, you make it into a digital copy, and the game's over. And there's always someone who will be able to get a higher-quality "rip" then you did, somewhere, someplace. That's why this is all such a futile waste of effort on their part.
Unless the {RI,MP}AA manages to outlaw ALL computers and recording devices and criminalize ALL recording not performed by them, an analog->digital rip will always be possible and the content will be available. The world is digital and we can't turn back the wheels of Progress. (In fact we should Promote it!)
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
The basic model they have now seems to be working just fine.. how much did Spiderman make?? All they need to do is lower their expectations of gross margins to the levels of most every other established industry.
What are they supposed to say? The drive is designed to play Compact Discs, and nothing else. If you put "MusicCorp(R) ShinyDiscsThatLookLikeCDs(tm)" in there, that's your problem. If they repair it when you put in that crap, they might as well repair it when your 8-year-old sticks in a 5" rotary saw blade.
I clean my "workstation" (I usually call it a "computer" but whatever) when either 1) keys don't come up again when pressed or 2) the trackball no longer rotates.
Other than that, I let the ol' immune system take care of it.
Contrast this when, once, we ordered a serial cable. The cable came in a three-foot by three foot shrinkwrapped and taped box, filled almost completely filled with that shock absorbing stuff - and a coiled cable (in its own sealed bag), rattling aroung in a corner of the box.
Yup. Just last week I ordered the following items from MacMall: ethernet switch, big stack of CDRs, Zip drive, USB keychain drive, some cables and stuff, and exactly one felt-tip pen for writing on said CDRs.
The order came in two shipments from two warehouses. Guess what came all by itself in a roughly 1x1x2' box, swaddled with kraft paper: the frickin' PEN!
They should've just refunded my $1 or whatever it was and written me a note: no fuckin' way we're sending you one fuckin' llitle pen in a big fuckin' box. Use a damn Sharpie.
works with literature too!
on
Mashed-Up Music
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Ladies and gentlemen, courtesy of Project Gutenburg and a short Perl script I just threw together, I give you the first paragraph from my latest novel:
A Moby Tale of Two Dick Cities
It call was me the Ishmael. Best some of years times, ago --
it never was mind the how worst long of precisely -- times, having it
little was or the no age money
of in wisdom, my it purse, was and the nothing age particular
of to foolishness, interest it me was on the shore, epoch I
of thought belief, I it would was sail the about epoch a
of little incredulity, and it see was the the watery season
part of of Light, the it world. Was it the is season a of
way Darkness, I it have was of the driving spring off of the
hope, spleen it and was regulating the the winter circulation.
of whenever despair, I we find had myself everything growing
before grim us, about we the had mouth; nothing whenever
before it us, is we a were damp, all drizzly going November
direct in to my Heaven, soul; we whenever were I all find
going myself direct involuntarily the pausing other before way --
coffin in warehouses, short, and the bringing period up was
the so rear far of like every the funeral present I period,
meet; that and some especially of whenever its my noisiest
hypos authorities get insisted such on an its upper being hand
received, of for me, good that or it for requires evil, a
in strong the moral superlative principle degree to of prevent
comparison me only.
Re:Artistic and Theft are not mutually exclusive
on
Mashed-Up Music
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Just because something has artistic merit, doesn't mean that distributing someone else's musical creations (albeit in an altered form) without permission is not theft. It's still theft. It's just artistic theft.
Well, I can't be sure if you're serious when you use the word "theft", but let's entertain that idea for a moment.
1. The original hasn't been touched (literally, the master tapes are intact at the studio), and "clean" originals can still be produced, so no theft has taken place.
2. The song has been combined with another song, creating a new and different work. So if someone downloads a copy they don't actually have the original songs. Hard for me to see that as theft.
3. The constitution says we must "promote progress", and suggests that exclusive rights to writings and discoveries is a way to do that. Since creating something new and interesting (both as entertainment [it sounds good] and as social commentary [MP3s are not evil]) must be part of progress, this activity seems to indicate that progress can be promoted without giving these authors exclusive rights over their writings in this particular case.
Now if someone started claiming he was affiliated with one of the artists, or claimed he WAS one of the artists, it would be fair to argue that he's taking away attention, business, and reputation that should rightfully go to the original artist. But that's another kettle o' fish altogether!
Gee, this $10 rebate was mentioned right on Red Hat's page and marketing, and if anybody just bought it (my boxed copy came yesterday) it has a sticker and form on the box. So you guys need a Register story to discover this?
Many software packages come with these rebates you know. Quicken came (or used to come) with an upgrade rebate. Adobe Photoshop Elements came with a competitive $30 rebate offer. Common practice!
How about the scoop on the REAL story: where are the goddamn Red Hat stickers? When I bought 7.0 it came with STICKERS! Do you think I shelled out $many dollars for my Red Hat 7.3 Personal box set for NOTHING? Where are my stickers!!!
I think the lack of stickers in the box is a clear sign that Red Hat is ready to file for chapter 11, or maybe even indicative of an Enron-style debacle. First the stickers go, next thing you know, Red Hat's backing the SSSCA and supporting Al Queda. What do you folks think??
Hah!! ( [tm] Chris Matthews, for you Hardball fans )
The only Microsoft "licenses" I own are the ones for the copies of Internet Explorer that came with my Macs.. unless I secretely paid Microsoft tax on my intel motherboard or something.. I don't think this is uncommon among Linux users!
I wish Stallman would drop the GNU/Linux crap
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
There was a time that I thought everything Stallman said was golden (actually there was a time before that when I thought everything he said was junk, but after high school I realized using proprietary software really did mean giving up freedom).
There was a time that if Stallman said: "If you believe in Free Software, you need to take of all your clothes and run through the streets screaming my name." I probably would've done it, assuming that he probably thought logically through every consequence and it was a good idea.
But the GNU/Linux thing is just really disappointing. It's embarrasing. It makes me feel silly to quote Stallman or refer people to the FSF.
I know people make fun of other things Stallman says, but usually they are making fun of what they WISH he said, rather than what he actually said. Like when people made fun of Al Gore for saying he invented the internet when he never actually said that. People like to find holes in armor, I suppose.
The GNU/Linux position is impossible. Why call it GNU when there are so many other components. And I get the feeling Stallman doesn't want to back down because, well, he doesn't want to back down, not because of any rational reason. Like a spoiled boy who can't admit he's wrong and yells his position a little louder hoping that he'll convince himself.
Stallman should drop the GNU/Linux thing. Devote more time to preaching about Freedom. Why doesn't the FSF use some of its cash hoard to buy some advertising or something? Why not splatter "Free Software means Freedom" all over magazines and web pages?
Oh well. I hope the FSF and Stallman don't become marginalized because of this, because their moral clarity on Free software and information freedom is vital.
Hackers will never be called crackers, and Linux will never be called GNU/Linux by every Linux vendor. It will never happen, and more importantly, it doesn't NEED to happen! The FSF should use their own means to advertise themselves, and not highjack other people's choice of names.
Agreed, emusic is pretty damn cool and their ties with big labels haven't turned them into crap (yet). I love the electronic music, jazz, and classic and most of the time end up buying the CD anyway (cause of the low bit rate).
I think a big record company with a working set of testicles should buy both emusic and Napster, rebrand the entire thing "Napster" and charge $x/month, with downloadable MP3s and file sharing capabilities (with some kind of low-price pay-to-share system). Come up with a "new music finder" (i.e., kinda like Amazon's system, customers who downloaded this also listen to that). I bet this will be EXTRA revenue for them, on top of CD sales.
Napster is a powerful and potent brand. "PressPlay" sounds like some kind of press release service, "MusicNet" sounds like something from an 80's computer movie, and the service will ALWAYS be shitty until it uses regular MP3s that can be copied.
Anything else will fail. These RIAA labels seem to be complete morons. They remind me of dogs who can see food on the other side of a fence but are too stupid to climb it or go around it and spend the day walking back and forth and/or butting their heads against it.
If a Capitalist saw 20million people on Napster, they'd think "wow, think of all the money that could be made from those 20million *customers*". Instead the monopolistic morons saw "20 million *thieves*" and didn't even bother trying to think of a way to exploit it.
Goddamn I say! I just read that letter and I think I'm getting a chubby! Can I send a campaign contribution to this guy? Does he have any siblings who live in the USA who can run for Congress? Goddamn!
This was my favorite paragraph:
In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
Subsidizing Microsoft's monopoly is a bad decision for the Government? It sure is! Government has better things to do with its money than pay $500 for a $0.50 CD-ROM? It sure does! *SMACK*
And this was my favorite paragraph from Microsoft:
13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?
That's like asking: Why do you need a Constitution? If the government doesn't do what's best for society, can't society just choose a new one? You mean the Government has a special role in society, different than a corporation buying software on the open market? Of course it does! *SMACK*
Oh well, enjoy it while you can. I bet in a few weeks we'll read on Slashdot how Microsoft payed the government of Peru $5,000,000 to standardize on Microsoft products and outlaw Free Software.
So, now a few geeks know that they're being watched more carefully. They can tell other geeks, who will make a fuss, and maybe even the general public will hear about it. Maybe you have to do some protesting or set yourself on fire or something.
Then, everyone who gives a toss will modify their behavior (Skip every commercial or watch only one show over and over. Or set up a robot arm to push the skip button once a second. Get creative.)
Then, when SonicBlue goes back to the court, they can say that the data are obviously flawed, because the rats knew they were being watched and changed their behavior.
SonicBlue must've been keeping data previous to this, anyway, they could compare and prove the behavior changed soon after the ruling.
Also, anybody know how this machine would store all this data? I can't imagine it streams it off to HQ everytime you push a button. Sounds like good hack possibilities to me. "Your honor, viewer #23489A somehow managed to skip 10,000,000 commercials last weekend. I think if you just arrest him the TV industry will be good to go."
Sure, a good idea, music and art are public goods, so lets have the public pay for it.
So. 2% of income you say? Well I think it should be 3%. No actually, 5% sounds pretty fair. I mean, think about all that music that's been stolen over the years. Billions of dollars lost, thousands of musicians died of starvation. Okay, you got me, I made the last one up completely. But then again I'm in the entertainment business, we make stuff up for a living.
And of course that will have to be increased by 1/2% per year. For inflation, DUH! What? I don't know what 95 times 2 is, why do you ask?
And of course we'll have to figure out the best way to distribute the funds to the artists. I say we go by top-40 radio airplay. We can just review everybody's contract and be good to go.... No I've never heard of "Independent Artists" is that the new group on Arista? Eh? You mean there are musicians who don't have record deals with us? Well, fuck 'em, they can get their own percentage, we got ours already.
The argument you're making is in fact the entire point: just because Microsoft printed words in their EULA, that doesn't mean they are a binding legal contract.
I consider EULA's to be simply a promise by the software vendor: we promise not to sue you if you do this and this, etc. That does not automatically mean they are morally or legally right, or that they would win such a lawsuit.
That's all that makes EULA's "binding": the threat of being sued. The software companies know that their power is tenuous here, and hope for legislation like UCITA that really makes it binding. ANY company would love to be able to dictate exactly what you could do with their product, so they could bill you for the different "privileges" of doing different things with the product.
Imagine if Ford said that by displaying the Ford trademarked logo in public, including on your car, you agree to a "Ford logo license", which says you can only drive 35mph or slower. For $1 per mph over 35, you can earn the privilege of driving over 35mph. Whenever Ford needed more income, they could just adjust the fees and cutoffs (be sure to check ford.com weekly for license updates) until they maximized profit. Whenever that didn't work, they could just send in the "Ford license enforcers" with speed guns, because somebody somewhere is probably violating the license. And if you don't keep accurate records of your speed, they offer you a settlement in compromise, just like the friendly folks at the BSA!
EULAs give software vendors too much power. The best thing to do is use Free/Open Source software, next best thing is to ignore the EULAs.
I don't recall a "basic human right" being the right to modify code without releasing it.
It is quite a basic right to be able to buy or download something and use it in the privacy of your home or business without having to explain how you are using it. If you buy a server and add RAM you don't have to demonstrate your changes to the computer maker, you don't have to send them blueprints, and you don't have to allow an agent of the computer maker into your home to inspect your computer. We enjoy this "right" with most things we buy, but not necessarily with software, so I can see where Stallman is coming from.
Does my licence to use GPL-licensed software end if I break the terms of the GPL? It certainly should! I don't want anyone using my GPL-licensed software if they're not following the terms of the GPL.
The GPL covers distribution, not usage. In fact it's up for debate whether a license can or should limit your use of the code.
I think Stallman's claims are nit-picky but valid. But if you are taken into court over this license, I guarantee the lawyers and judges will be reading this license just as carefully if not more so than Stallman did, so if nothing else, I appreciate him uncovering these possible problems.
I think the points were 1) Lucent is claiming it's an "open source" license when it is not (and the term "open source software" is a registered mark, I believe). And 2) if you are considering using this OS, especially in a commercial setting, it is vitally important to understand the license, because it tells you what rights you get or give up by downloading the software.
When people are offering you something for free, it's pretty rude to complain that they're not offering you even more.
They aren't offering it "for free", they are offering it "with strings attached".
Aren't these are the same men, women, and managers (children, managers, whatever;-) who buy new computers and apps every 1.5 years anyway because their previous computers die of Old Windows Disease/Planned Obsolescence/Lack of Support/etc? They re-buy most of their hardware and software over and over again.
The court says, "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this contract because the right to keep Jimmy supersedes the right to enforce a contract"
Or hopefully: "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this 'contract' because it's not a contract, nobody signed it. The buyer of this software already fulfilled his obligations when he paid the money or clicked the mouse to have your computer give him a copy for free."
But when the writer of the EULA can enforce the EULA, then it is perfectly legal and fine.
I don't think what this software did had anything to do with contracts or licenses per se. Imagine you downloaded a program called CoolProgram that plays.MP3 files and also deletes all the.OGG files on your hard drive. Imagine also it includes a text file that plainly describes it's behavior. No EULA's involved here, just a program that does what it says it will.
Now the question is, how deeply can a company bury this information? Do they have to be clear and up-front about the danger of installing their software, or can they keep it hidden? I don't know the answer to that..ethically of course, it's nice to know whenever any file on my machine will be deleted.
Slashdot Mirror
people are still registering for massive numbers of accounts. "As far as I can tell, they're just doing it by hand. They're sitting there all day doing it by hand," he said. So he's considering changing the registration test to a simple arithmetic problem. It won't stop the mass registrations, but he might be able to get the abusers to perform distributed computing tasks for him.
HAH! That is really clever. Of course there isn't much computing power there, and if Yahoo! did harness it they would resell it and/or generally become sleazy about it, but at first blush, that's pretty funny. He should patent it (ha ha).
If he wanted to help grandma read, he would bring some books from the local library and get grandma some warm tea and a bright light.
Dear billstr78:
My name is Jim Shyster, and I represent Global Tetrahedron Publishing, the largest book publisher in the world. It has come to our attention that you are distributing instructions describing how to circumvent the patented access control device which protects our valuable printed content.
Our patented access control system, which is sold under various names, including Darkness(tm), NoLight(R), and Hey-I-Can't-See(tm), is an effective system for protecting copyrighted works from unauthorized duplication and use. Over 10,000 man-hours have gone into developing this popular system, which is licensed to thousands of usersworldwide.
Your description clearly outlines a method for circumventing this system, by use of a "bright light", in violation of US copyright law, specifically Code Title 17, Ch. 12, Sec. 1201. The reading license in our books states that only our NightVision(R) Glasses can be used to read these books in an otherwise darkened room, which are available from our distributors for $199.99. A reader may also purchase a Perpetual Sunshine License ($1,999) which grants members of a household the right to read outdoors, under solar illumination, at any time. These are the only authorized uses of our products.
You might also note the section of the license that forbids license holders from using public libraries or any other system of "free" or "unauthorized" reading, lending, or copying; in order to prevent book piracy.
We trust that you will remove the infringing material within 7 days.
Most Very Truly Yours,
Jim Shyster, ESQ
Dewie, Cheatham, and Howe LLP
But surely the real 'threat' of digital media is actually the close-to-zero marginal cost of copying the original.
With a VCR each copy is a real, physical, medium. With digital everything is, well, virtual.
Yeah, but if you have an analog copy, you make it into a digital copy, and the game's over. And there's always someone who will be able to get a higher-quality "rip" then you did, somewhere, someplace. That's why this is all such a futile waste of effort on their part.
Unless the {RI,MP}AA manages to outlaw ALL computers and recording devices and criminalize ALL recording not performed by them, an analog->digital rip will always be possible and the content will be available. The world is digital and we can't turn back the wheels of Progress. (In fact we should Promote it!)
I'm not convinced that model works for music and movies though.
The basic model they have now seems to be working just fine.. how much did Spiderman make?? All they need to do is lower their expectations of gross margins to the levels of most every other established industry.
ha ha ha I made a funny
How do you like them apples?
What are they supposed to say? The drive is designed to play Compact Discs, and nothing else. If you put "MusicCorp(R) ShinyDiscsThatLookLikeCDs(tm)" in there, that's your problem. If they repair it when you put in that crap, they might as well repair it when your 8-year-old sticks in a 5" rotary saw blade.
I clean my "workstation" (I usually call it a "computer" but whatever) when either 1) keys don't come up again when pressed or 2) the trackball no longer rotates.
Other than that, I let the ol' immune system take care of it.
Yeah, many people don't think about that. When I write C code I always write:
Some weird habit I picked up but it drives people nuts.. "hey, is that legal in C?", etc.Contrast this when, once, we ordered a serial cable. The cable came in a three-foot by three foot shrinkwrapped and taped box, filled almost completely filled with that shock absorbing stuff - and a coiled cable (in its own sealed bag), rattling aroung in a corner of the box.
Yup. Just last week I ordered the following items from MacMall: ethernet switch, big stack of CDRs, Zip drive, USB keychain drive, some cables and stuff, and exactly one felt-tip pen for writing on said CDRs.
The order came in two shipments from two warehouses. Guess what came all by itself in a roughly 1x1x2' box, swaddled with kraft paper: the frickin' PEN!
They should've just refunded my $1 or whatever it was and written me a note: no fuckin' way we're sending you one fuckin' llitle pen in a big fuckin' box. Use a damn Sharpie.
Ladies and gentlemen, courtesy of Project Gutenburg and a short Perl script I just threw together, I give you the first paragraph from my latest novel:
A Moby Tale of Two Dick Cities
It call was me the Ishmael. Best some of years times, ago -- it never was mind the how worst long of precisely -- times, having it little was or the no age money of in wisdom, my it purse, was and the nothing age particular of to foolishness, interest it me was on the shore, epoch I of thought belief, I it would was sail the about epoch a of little incredulity, and it see was the the watery season part of of Light, the it world. Was it the is season a of way Darkness, I it have was of the driving spring off of the hope, spleen it and was regulating the the winter circulation. of whenever despair, I we find had myself everything growing before grim us, about we the had mouth; nothing whenever before it us, is we a were damp, all drizzly going November direct in to my Heaven, soul; we whenever were I all find going myself direct involuntarily the pausing other before way -- coffin in warehouses, short, and the bringing period up was the so rear far of like every the funeral present I period, meet; that and some especially of whenever its my noisiest hypos authorities get insisted such on an its upper being hand received, of for me, good that or it for requires evil, a in strong the moral superlative principle degree to of prevent comparison me only.
Just because something has artistic merit, doesn't mean that distributing someone else's musical creations (albeit in an altered form) without permission is not theft. It's still theft. It's just artistic theft.
Well, I can't be sure if you're serious when you use the word "theft", but let's entertain that idea for a moment.
1. The original hasn't been touched (literally, the master tapes are intact at the studio), and "clean" originals can still be produced, so no theft has taken place.
2. The song has been combined with another song, creating a new and different work. So if someone downloads a copy they don't actually have the original songs. Hard for me to see that as theft.
3. The constitution says we must "promote progress", and suggests that exclusive rights to writings and discoveries is a way to do that. Since creating something new and interesting (both as entertainment [it sounds good] and as social commentary [MP3s are not evil]) must be part of progress, this activity seems to indicate that progress can be promoted without giving these authors exclusive rights over their writings in this particular case.
Now if someone started claiming he was affiliated with one of the artists, or claimed he WAS one of the artists, it would be fair to argue that he's taking away attention, business, and reputation that should rightfully go to the original artist. But that's another kettle o' fish altogether!
Gee, this $10 rebate was mentioned right on Red Hat's page and marketing, and if anybody just bought it (my boxed copy came yesterday) it has a sticker and form on the box. So you guys need a Register story to discover this?
Many software packages come with these rebates you know. Quicken came (or used to come) with an upgrade rebate. Adobe Photoshop Elements came with a competitive $30 rebate offer. Common practice!
How about the scoop on the REAL story: where are the goddamn Red Hat stickers? When I bought 7.0 it came with STICKERS! Do you think I shelled out $many dollars for my Red Hat 7.3 Personal box set for NOTHING? Where are my stickers!!!
I think the lack of stickers in the box is a clear sign that Red Hat is ready to file for chapter 11, or maybe even indicative of an Enron-style debacle. First the stickers go, next thing you know, Red Hat's backing the SSSCA and supporting Al Queda. What do you folks think??
Hah!! ( [tm] Chris Matthews, for you Hardball fans )
The only Microsoft "licenses" I own are the ones for the copies of Internet Explorer that came with my Macs .. unless I secretely paid Microsoft tax on my intel motherboard or something .. I don't think this is uncommon among Linux users!
Actually, it turns out Jesus was a naked black woman.
There was a time that I thought everything Stallman said was golden (actually there was a time before that when I thought everything he said was junk, but after high school I realized using proprietary software really did mean giving up freedom).
There was a time that if Stallman said: "If you believe in Free Software, you need to take of all your clothes and run through the streets screaming my name." I probably would've done it, assuming that he probably thought logically through every consequence and it was a good idea.
But the GNU/Linux thing is just really disappointing. It's embarrasing. It makes me feel silly to quote Stallman or refer people to the FSF.
I know people make fun of other things Stallman says, but usually they are making fun of what they WISH he said, rather than what he actually said. Like when people made fun of Al Gore for saying he invented the internet when he never actually said that. People like to find holes in armor, I suppose.
The GNU/Linux position is impossible. Why call it GNU when there are so many other components. And I get the feeling Stallman doesn't want to back down because, well, he doesn't want to back down, not because of any rational reason. Like a spoiled boy who can't admit he's wrong and yells his position a little louder hoping that he'll convince himself.
Stallman should drop the GNU/Linux thing. Devote more time to preaching about Freedom. Why doesn't the FSF use some of its cash hoard to buy some advertising or something? Why not splatter "Free Software means Freedom" all over magazines and web pages?
Oh well. I hope the FSF and Stallman don't become marginalized because of this, because their moral clarity on Free software and information freedom is vital.
Hackers will never be called crackers, and Linux will never be called GNU/Linux by every Linux vendor. It will never happen, and more importantly, it doesn't NEED to happen! The FSF should use their own means to advertise themselves, and not highjack other people's choice of names.
Agreed, emusic is pretty damn cool and their ties with big labels haven't turned them into crap (yet). I love the electronic music, jazz, and classic and most of the time end up buying the CD anyway (cause of the low bit rate).
I think a big record company with a working set of testicles should buy both emusic and Napster, rebrand the entire thing "Napster" and charge $x/month, with downloadable MP3s and file sharing capabilities (with some kind of low-price pay-to-share system). Come up with a "new music finder" (i.e., kinda like Amazon's system, customers who downloaded this also listen to that). I bet this will be EXTRA revenue for them, on top of CD sales.
Napster is a powerful and potent brand. "PressPlay" sounds like some kind of press release service, "MusicNet" sounds like something from an 80's computer movie, and the service will ALWAYS be shitty until it uses regular MP3s that can be copied.
Anything else will fail. These RIAA labels seem to be complete morons. They remind me of dogs who can see food on the other side of a fence but are too stupid to climb it or go around it and spend the day walking back and forth and/or butting their heads against it.
If a Capitalist saw 20million people on Napster, they'd think "wow, think of all the money that could be made from those 20million *customers*". Instead the monopolistic morons saw "20 million *thieves*" and didn't even bother trying to think of a way to exploit it.
Goddamn I say! I just read that letter and I think I'm getting a chubby! Can I send a campaign contribution to this guy? Does he have any siblings who live in the USA who can run for Congress? Goddamn!
This was my favorite paragraph:
In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidising the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
Subsidizing Microsoft's monopoly is a bad decision for the Government? It sure is! Government has better things to do with its money than pay $500 for a $0.50 CD-ROM? It sure does! *SMACK*
And this was my favorite paragraph from Microsoft:
13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?
That's like asking: Why do you need a Constitution? If the government doesn't do what's best for society, can't society just choose a new one? You mean the Government has a special role in society, different than a corporation buying software on the open market? Of course it does! *SMACK*
Oh well, enjoy it while you can. I bet in a few weeks we'll read on Slashdot how Microsoft payed the government of Peru $5,000,000 to standardize on Microsoft products and outlaw Free Software.
So, now a few geeks know that they're being watched more carefully. They can tell other geeks, who will make a fuss, and maybe even the general public will hear about it. Maybe you have to do some protesting or set yourself on fire or something.
Then, everyone who gives a toss will modify their behavior (Skip every commercial or watch only one show over and over. Or set up a robot arm to push the skip button once a second. Get creative.)
Then, when SonicBlue goes back to the court, they can say that the data are obviously flawed, because the rats knew they were being watched and changed their behavior.
SonicBlue must've been keeping data previous to this, anyway, they could compare and prove the behavior changed soon after the ruling.
Also, anybody know how this machine would store all this data? I can't imagine it streams it off to HQ everytime you push a button. Sounds like good hack possibilities to me. "Your honor, viewer #23489A somehow managed to skip 10,000,000 commercials last weekend. I think if you just arrest him the TV industry will be good to go."
Sure, a good idea, music and art are public goods, so lets have the public pay for it.
So. 2% of income you say? Well I think it should be 3%. No actually, 5% sounds pretty fair. I mean, think about all that music that's been stolen over the years. Billions of dollars lost, thousands of musicians died of starvation. Okay, you got me, I made the last one up completely. But then again I'm in the entertainment business, we make stuff up for a living.
And of course that will have to be increased by 1/2% per year. For inflation, DUH! What? I don't know what 95 times 2 is, why do you ask?
And of course we'll have to figure out the best way to distribute the funds to the artists. I say we go by top-40 radio airplay. We can just review everybody's contract and be good to go.... No I've never heard of "Independent Artists" is that the new group on Arista? Eh? You mean there are musicians who don't have record deals with us? Well, fuck 'em, they can get their own percentage, we got ours already.
This tax sounds like a good plan to me!!
Sincerely,
Record Company Executive
Comment from the newspaper:
One of the ongoing issues with Web content is that it's free, and how do you make money off that?
Well, you DON'T, it's FREE!!
Of course they might mean Free as in Freedom, but then why are they sending C&D letters?
The argument you're making is in fact the entire point: just because Microsoft printed words in their EULA, that doesn't mean they are a binding legal contract.
I consider EULA's to be simply a promise by the software vendor: we promise not to sue you if you do this and this, etc. That does not automatically mean they are morally or legally right, or that they would win such a lawsuit.
That's all that makes EULA's "binding": the threat of being sued. The software companies know that their power is tenuous here, and hope for legislation like UCITA that really makes it binding. ANY company would love to be able to dictate exactly what you could do with their product, so they could bill you for the different "privileges" of doing different things with the product.
Imagine if Ford said that by displaying the Ford trademarked logo in public, including on your car, you agree to a "Ford logo license", which says you can only drive 35mph or slower. For $1 per mph over 35, you can earn the privilege of driving over 35mph. Whenever Ford needed more income, they could just adjust the fees and cutoffs (be sure to check ford.com weekly for license updates) until they maximized profit. Whenever that didn't work, they could just send in the "Ford license enforcers" with speed guns, because somebody somewhere is probably violating the license. And if you don't keep accurate records of your speed, they offer you a settlement in compromise, just like the friendly folks at the BSA!
EULAs give software vendors too much power. The best thing to do is use Free/Open Source software, next best thing is to ignore the EULAs.
'Linux is a way of developing software whereas piracy is copying.'
And I always thought "piracy" was the illegal plundering of ships and boats. I love newspeak!
I don't recall a "basic human right" being the right to modify code without releasing it.
It is quite a basic right to be able to buy or download something and use it in the privacy of your home or business without having to explain how you are using it. If you buy a server and add RAM you don't have to demonstrate your changes to the computer maker, you don't have to send them blueprints, and you don't have to allow an agent of the computer maker into your home to inspect your computer. We enjoy this "right" with most things we buy, but not necessarily with software, so I can see where Stallman is coming from.
Does my licence to use GPL-licensed software end if I break the terms of the GPL? It certainly should! I don't want anyone using my GPL-licensed software if they're not following the terms of the GPL.
The GPL covers distribution, not usage. In fact it's up for debate whether a license can or should limit your use of the code.
I think Stallman's claims are nit-picky but valid. But if you are taken into court over this license, I guarantee the lawyers and judges will be reading this license just as carefully if not more so than Stallman did, so if nothing else, I appreciate him uncovering these possible problems.
When people are offering you something for free, it's pretty rude to complain that they're not offering you even more.
They aren't offering it "for free", they are offering it "with strings attached".
Aren't these are the same men, women, and managers (children, managers, whatever ;-) who buy new computers and apps every 1.5 years anyway because their previous computers die of Old Windows Disease/Planned Obsolescence/Lack of Support/etc? They re-buy most of their hardware and software over and over again.
The court says, "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this contract because the right to keep Jimmy supersedes the right to enforce a contract"
Or hopefully: "Sorry company, we aren't going to enforce this 'contract' because it's not a contract, nobody signed it. The buyer of this software already fulfilled his obligations when he paid the money or clicked the mouse to have your computer give him a copy for free."
But when the writer of the EULA can enforce the EULA, then it is perfectly legal and fine.
I don't think what this software did had anything to do with contracts or licenses per se. Imagine you downloaded a program called CoolProgram that plays .MP3 files and also deletes all the .OGG files on your hard drive. Imagine also it includes a text file that plainly describes it's behavior. No EULA's involved here, just a program that does what it says it will.
Now the question is, how deeply can a company bury this information? Do they have to be clear and up-front about the danger of installing their software, or can they keep it hidden? I don't know the answer to that..ethically of course, it's nice to know whenever any file on my machine will be deleted.