Absolutely wrong. Too many times in this age, people are punished for what they MAY do wrong. That is NOT the way it was intended for this country to function.
I really get bent out of shape over this type of lawmaking (DVD/CD encryption, Macrovision, currency detection) are all. I don't care if only ONE SINGLE PERSON is out there using any technology lawfully, then it is wrong to do this. Punish the people who actually DO the wrong thing. Not everyone.
I worked in an office inside of a manufacturing facility where raw fiberglass insulation products were being processed (read pounded into submission by 300 ton presses) that caused much of it to be ejected into the air.
Many people who started work there rarely made it past lunch time the first day.
.99 a song is outrageous. That is more expensive than CDs.
Anything more than.10-.15/song is highway robbery and that amount would pay for the bandwidth many times over (leaving plenty for the band and pocket money for the company providing the service).
Sure.10-.15 isn't going to be enough if the RIAA gets 50%, the service provider getting a chunk, the band getting some, bandwidth overhead, etc.
I see so many articles about this but even on a law site the OBVIOUS point is still missed. These are TOOLS. Tools do not break the law, people break the law. If there is even one small legitimate use to a certain piece of software, no one should have any argument against its use even if millions are breaking the law with it. HTTP and FTP can and ARE used to host files that violate copyright. So can Windows file and print sharing, my goodness, you can even encode hidden files inside of picture files. Are all of these going to be outlawed by the government and the RIAA and MPAA? Get a grip. Go after the ones breaking the law not the tools people are using to do it.
Moral rant ***** ALSO just because you break the law doesn't mean your not on the moral high ground.
Mull over the following fact: I am definitely to the point of refusing to buy CD's and movies because I am treated like a criminal. Yes... I use it. I just downloaded all of Fallen by Evanescence. I liked it so much that I went to their website and tried to find ANY method to pay them directly because I REFUSE to give any money to the RIAA. There is no way to do it there. I know there sites out there that are trying to do this but there should be the option to pay the artists directly because I want to KNOW where my money is going. I'm not saying I'm right and that I'm not hypocritical by doing this and finding excuses not to pay, but I'm fed up with it. There has to be another way.
Exactly. Even though he didn't answer my question that I posted when they were being gathered, he answered it indirectly. The fact that it even COULD be included in a DRM solution actually means that it WILL be included in a DRM solution. I'm tired of having my fair use rights trampled on. I don't care if 2 billion people are stealing content and only 1 who isn't, that doesn't give them the right to lock out every tool that could possibly be used to bypass their DRM technology, or to lock down every piece of media because they havn't approved how you plan to use it.
Here is a hypothetical... my company uses Microsoft products. We have an in house programmer. If (When) Microsoft starts tying their code to the Bioses and you have the choice of running the PC in entirely trusted or entirely untrusted modes, our workstations in the organization start having to be two workstations. Once to run nothing but trusted applications, and another to run our uncertified code created by our in house programmer where we used to have one PC. And OMG what if they tie it to network access also, will the PC eventually have to be completely standalone to run untrusted code? We have a few Linux machines here... time to start increasing their numbers and get the users used to using them.
Be truthful. Is there even the slightest chance that someone other than me will be able to say what will run (or more importtantly will NOT run) on a PC that contains this technology? I'm not talking about purchased software that locks me out directly in one way or another due to licensing issues. But can this technology be used to stop me from exercising fair use rights if I decide to get around those blocks in purchased software? Or will they hinder me from writing my own code to do what I want, or downloading and compiling/running someone elses code? If ANY of these CAN be a side effect of this technology, it is bad. There are stumbling blocks, of course, but no one will have ultimate say over what does or does not run on my own computer.
Ya.. I don't know which one it was.. but the one with the whales was horrendous. Humour shouldn't be forced into sci-fi movies. It comes on its own sometimes which is fine, but to force it in kills it. Thats what the one with the whales did. And its also what made the last 3 seasons of X-Files suck so badly. Humour in sci-fi = bad.
I think most of you are looking at this too narrow mindedely. Set top boxes THEMSELVES are evil. It is nothing but a gradual intruction of technology that will eventually make EVERYTHING pay per view. I say they all need to be made to work with tuners built into Televisions and all televisions should be shipped with standard tuners that work with standard cable providers, etc, etc, etc. Why can't we just go back to a single remote again?
My vote isn't hung. The place is called Clean Flicks. As long as there is a blockbuster just down the street, it does absolutely nothing except give the consumer a choice. If they WANT the full unedited version just rent from Blockbuster. If there is a movie they'd like to watch that is pretty rough, but they can't find a sitter for the kids, then I think its absolutely great that there is a choice without having to watch the Little Mermaid. And I'm sure that the movie companies are still getting their "fair share" of the takes.
I'll never go digital until they stop trying to make me do things I don't want to do. When its as easy as it is now (one line of cable into the house and I can plug a TV into any pre-wired jack in my house and watch), I'll do it. If they insist on getting a seperate fee for decoders on every TV in my house I'll never do it. Digital dishes even sound like a good idea unless you have a house pre-wired for cable. Its all useless in that scenario, you can only watch where you have a decoder and can only record what you watch which defeats the purpose.
I actually prefer MS's player over all the others... ESPECIALLY Real player. Its nearly the only one left that doesn't carry add-on spyware. At least you can disable the tracking on WMP. Most of the others take over the system and try to take control of every media type out there and carry pop-up banners and other crap I don't want to deal with. .
Why not LET them have it both ways. Why is it that when marketing people get involved that the word "compromise" becomes forgotten?
Heres an idea... charge a SMALL additional fee to end users to help subsidize ads. Then reduce ad fees to advertisers and tell them up front that some people will choose record and remove ads.
Only in the digital world to advertisers think that there is some dictum straight from God that ads MUST be viewed. In any other medium there is no guarantee to the advertiser that their ads are viewed. They must simply learn to live with it. .
That statement contains too much "common sense". The offering of streaming content to the public would be welcomed and a great success the way you mention it but it will never happen.
Here is the true scenario: Some bigwig comes up with the same idea you just voiced but also adds the idea of getting ADDITIONAL ad revenue specifically for the streamed version. They don't get enough interest from ad houses who don't want to pay the additional fees so they both back out of the deal and we get nothing.
How can they put in their legalese that its not legal to separate the content and player from the media? Unless I am in the dark on this we have every right to move the content anywhere we want as long as it is for our use only. They cannot take that from us. Someone with more legal knowledge on the issue give some input.
.
Re:The show relied too much on Mulder...
on
The End of The X-Files
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Aww... come on:)
I was so disappointed that Millennium ended. IMHO Millennium was much better than the Lone Gunmen series and it was cool because it was even darker than the X-Files. They could have done some really impressive crossovers between the two other than just the hints they gave us. The years that M and X were a 1-2 punch on the same night were the best TV watching years of my life so far (Ok.. so I need to get one (a life that is)).
I've also always liked Lance Henrikson. He along with Michael Ironside are two of the best actors for "dark" roles out there.
Its all a scam anyway. The days of having a new house built with ONE cable coming in that splits to every room in the house are over with.
I want to go back to the days of buying a TV, plugging it into the wall anywhere in my house and watch what I want to watch. Not buy additional outlets or additional descramblers or converters or, or or (you get the picture - hehe).
I also want to be able to watch one thing and tape another. Its all about control... and we're being controlled because we so quickly buy into the new technological marvels without also looking at what we lose.
The parent is a good question but IMO centers too heavily on just the academic ramifications of what the RIAA is trying to pull. This goes much much deeper. The results of this, if the RIAA were to go unchecked, would touch each and every person in the United States. Fair use rights would be trampled by any person anywhere with even the remotest claim to intellectual property. This is just the beginning. I would like to see this question posted if it were slightly re-phrased to cover the "big picture" of how this will eventually affect EVERYONE... not just researchers or computer geeks like us.
MS posted this bulletin to their security mailing list about 8:00 est today. They are doing a pretty good job of notifying everyone in the event of a failure. To get good, up to date information about security go to www.microsoft.com/security. They usually notify of new security issues and fixes within a day or so. The information is there and its not that hard to find. Just in case you still have trouble finding the link for the bulletin mailing list, here is the link. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/notify.asp
I'm glad someone knew this. I had always assumed that it was some weird reference to the way that some people deal with a fat, well-fed, newly discovered tick - putting it in a spoon and heating the bottom of the spoon with a match or lighter until the tick pops and takes off like a mini-fighter jet.
I wish there would be something like this for the US. It is an absolute disgrace that now TNN has changed its name from Nashville to National and started airing cool reruns of STTNG and I have to watch it though a horrendous bottom bar. Not just a transparent logo in the corner, but a continuous ugly black bar all the way across the bottom. I cant even read the text when they translate for Klingons (the horror).
Finally a small amount of sanity in this insane world. The DMCA and the legal clout that it gives big business may have another small crack now. But it seems everytime the ball gets rolling a little something stops it in its track. Just the idea of them trying to limit how I can watch a DVD or media that I legally obtained burns me up. I have just about had enough of the RIAA and MPAA and other big business shoving people around. I from this point on am not going to "buy" another cd or watch another movie that I don't get for free on the internet. But wait... don't jump to hasty conclusions about me or anyone else that is finally thinking this way. A common misconception in the world these days is that breaking the law is always wrong. WRONG. Many many times the morally correct thing to do is at odds with the "law". If the proper forum were available where appreciative listeners could pool money to send DIRECTLY to the artists that they enjoy listening to, I think many people would line up give their fair share. Its just that these strong arm tactics have me seeing red. NO ONE should be able to dictate how I listen to music or watch TV. Its a sad state of affairs when things have gotten so bad that I even feel animosity towards the cable company for upgrading my cable from analog to digital. Now I am forced to decide between one single show to watch or tape unless I pay more money for another decoder. It would not have been to this point had all of the other things not been going on in this industry. I will resist HDTV until the bitter end. What I watch is my own business... if I want to fast forward past commercials on a show I taped, so be it. I'm just plain tired of being pushed around by these people, and until there is a better way, I simply will not support it/them any longer, and I argue that this does not make me a bad person. It simply means that I am choosing the lesser of two evils. It would take a few big name artists to buck the system and back their listeners and drop out of contracts with RIAA and allow listeners to pay them directly but it has to start somewhere. The bands themselves are the logical starting point. Lawsuits will fly. People will lose money but in the long run we will all come out better than we were before if this were to happen.
As someone else said.. it does have bandwidth limits. An analogy in gnutella would be like 100 people serving a file that only 10 people wanted to download... its really efficient in that scenario.
Kind of like people that serve up classical music mp3's:)
These guys are not as stupid as we would like to believe they are. It is very VERY likely that the beginning forms of this bill were so restrictive that no one in their right mind would pass it. The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for. They may end up making "compromises" that are still unacceptable to the public but are the exact effect they were after all along.
Call me the most radical of them all. But I agree with Mr. Katz... why vote at all when NO one.. even the best candidate (for me) stands for all the issue (I stand for). Sure one representative may believe the same as myself on one or two issues, but not them all. Government doesnt even need politicians anymore. In todays digital world each persons vote could be tallied instantly about ANY issue brought before government. Some will argue that everyone doesnt have access to computers to vote. Make them as readily available as ATM's that are on every street corner. Vote about any and every issue at every level of government. Voting will be rampant and turnout will be much less because anything and everything is being voted on BUT... the end result is that people will search out and vote for only the things they feel important. Ex. something up for election at the local level only gets 150 votes total.. but winning.. the turnout wasnt high for that particular issue but the people that cared about it voted... AND THEY are the ones that should make the decision anyway.
I dont need a politician to make my decisions for me because he feels it is in my best interest
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely wrong. Too many times in this age, people are punished for what they MAY do wrong. That is NOT the way it was intended for this country to function.
I really get bent out of shape over this type of lawmaking (DVD/CD encryption, Macrovision, currency detection) are all. I don't care if only ONE SINGLE PERSON is out there using any technology lawfully, then it is wrong to do this. Punish the people who actually DO the wrong thing. Not everyone.
.
I worked in an office inside of a manufacturing facility where raw fiberglass insulation products were being processed (read pounded into submission by 300 ton presses) that caused much of it to be ejected into the air.
Many people who started work there rarely made it past lunch time the first day.
.99 a song is outrageous. That is more expensive than CDs.
.10-.15/song is highway robbery and that amount would pay for the bandwidth many times over (leaving plenty for the band and pocket money for the company providing the service).
.10-.15 isn't going to be enough if the RIAA gets 50%, the service provider getting a chunk, the band getting some, bandwidth overhead, etc.
Anything more than
Sure
I see so many articles about this but even on a law site the OBVIOUS point is still missed. These are TOOLS. Tools do not break the law, people break the law. If there is even one small legitimate use to a certain piece of software, no one should have any argument against its use even if millions are breaking the law with it. HTTP and FTP can and ARE used to host files that violate copyright. So can Windows file and print sharing, my goodness, you can even encode hidden files inside of picture files. Are all of these going to be outlawed by the government and the RIAA and MPAA? Get a grip. Go after the ones breaking the law not the tools people are using to do it.
Moral rant *****
ALSO just because you break the law doesn't mean your not on the moral high ground.
Mull over the following fact:
I am definitely to the point of refusing to buy CD's and movies because I am treated like a criminal.
Yes... I use it. I just downloaded all of Fallen by Evanescence. I liked it so much that I went to their website and tried to find ANY method to pay them directly because I REFUSE to give any money to the RIAA. There is no way to do it there. I know there sites out there that are trying to do this but there should be the option to pay the artists directly because I want to KNOW where my money is going.
I'm not saying I'm right and that I'm not hypocritical by doing this and finding excuses not to pay, but I'm fed up with it. There has to be another way.
Exactly.
Even though he didn't answer my question that I posted when they were being gathered, he answered it indirectly.
The fact that it even COULD be included in a DRM solution actually means that it WILL be included in a DRM solution. I'm tired of having my fair use rights trampled on.
I don't care if 2 billion people are stealing content and only 1 who isn't, that doesn't give them the right to lock out every tool that could possibly be used to bypass their DRM technology, or to lock down every piece of media because they havn't approved how you plan to use it.
Here is a hypothetical... my company uses Microsoft products. We have an in house programmer. If (When) Microsoft starts tying their code to the Bioses and you have the choice of running the PC in entirely trusted or entirely untrusted modes, our workstations in the organization start having to be two workstations. Once to run nothing but trusted applications, and another to run our uncertified code created by our in house programmer where we used to have one PC.
And OMG what if they tie it to network access also, will the PC eventually have to be completely standalone to run untrusted code?
We have a few Linux machines here... time to start increasing their numbers and get the users used to using them.
.
Be truthful. Is there even the slightest chance that someone other than me will be able to say what will run (or more importtantly will NOT run) on a PC that contains this technology? I'm not talking about purchased software that locks me out directly in one way or another due to licensing issues. But can this technology be used to stop me from exercising fair use rights if I decide to get around those blocks in purchased software? Or will they hinder me from writing my own code to do what I want, or downloading and compiling/running someone elses code?
If ANY of these CAN be a side effect of this technology, it is bad. There are stumbling blocks, of course, but no one will have ultimate say over what does or does not run on my own computer.
.
Ya.. I don't know which one it was.. but the one with the whales was horrendous. Humour shouldn't be forced into sci-fi movies. It comes on its own sometimes which is fine, but to force it in kills it. Thats what the one with the whales did. And its also what made the last 3 seasons of X-Files suck so badly. Humour in sci-fi = bad.
I think most of you are looking at this too narrow mindedely. Set top boxes THEMSELVES are evil. It is nothing but a gradual intruction of technology that will eventually make EVERYTHING pay per view. I say they all need to be made to work with tuners built into Televisions and all televisions should be shipped with standard tuners that work with standard cable providers, etc, etc, etc.
Why can't we just go back to a single remote again?
My vote isn't hung. The place is called Clean Flicks. As long as there is a blockbuster just down the street, it does absolutely nothing except give the consumer a choice. If they WANT the full unedited version just rent from Blockbuster. If there is a movie they'd like to watch that is pretty rough, but they can't find a sitter for the kids, then I think its absolutely great that there is a choice without having to watch the Little Mermaid. And I'm sure that the movie companies are still getting their "fair share" of the takes.
.
I'll never go digital until they stop trying to make me do things I don't want to do. When its as easy as it is now (one line of cable into the house and I can plug a TV into any pre-wired jack in my house and watch), I'll do it. If they insist on getting a seperate fee for decoders on every TV in my house I'll never do it. Digital dishes even sound like a good idea unless you have a house pre-wired for cable. Its all useless in that scenario, you can only watch where you have a decoder and can only record what you watch which defeats the purpose.
I actually prefer MS's player over all the others... ESPECIALLY Real player. Its nearly the only one left that doesn't carry add-on spyware. At least you can disable the tracking on WMP. Most of the others take over the system and try to take control of every media type out there and carry pop-up banners and other crap I don't want to deal with.
.
This is the best idea I have ever heard. I wish I had moderation points at the moment.
Why not LET them have it both ways. Why is it that when marketing people get involved that the word "compromise" becomes forgotten?
Heres an idea... charge a SMALL additional fee to end users to help subsidize ads. Then reduce ad fees to advertisers and tell them up front that some people will choose record and remove ads.
Only in the digital world to advertisers think that there is some dictum straight from God that ads MUST be viewed. In any other medium there is no guarantee to the advertiser that their ads are viewed. They must simply learn to live with it.
.
That statement contains too much "common sense". The offering of streaming content to the public would be welcomed and a great success the way you mention it but it will never happen.
Here is the true scenario: Some bigwig comes up with the same idea you just voiced but also adds the idea of getting ADDITIONAL ad revenue specifically for the streamed version. They don't get enough interest from ad houses who don't want to pay the additional fees so they both back out of the deal and we get nothing.
.
How can they put in their legalese that its not legal to separate the content and player from the media? Unless I am in the dark on this we have every right to move the content anywhere we want as long as it is for our use only. They cannot take that from us. Someone with more legal knowledge on the issue give some input.
.
Aww... come on :)
I was so disappointed that Millennium ended. IMHO Millennium was much better than the Lone Gunmen series and it was cool because it was even darker than the X-Files. They could have done some really impressive crossovers between the two other than just the hints they gave us. The years that M and X were a 1-2 punch on the same night were the best TV watching years of my life so far (Ok.. so I need to get one (a life that is)).
I've also always liked Lance Henrikson. He along with Michael Ironside are two of the best actors for "dark" roles out there.
.
Its all a scam anyway. The days of having a new house built with ONE cable coming in that splits to every room in the house are over with.
I want to go back to the days of buying a TV, plugging it into the wall anywhere in my house and watch what I want to watch. Not buy additional outlets or additional descramblers or converters or, or or (you get the picture - hehe).
I also want to be able to watch one thing and tape another. Its all about control... and we're being controlled because we so quickly buy into the new technological marvels without also looking at what we lose.
The parent is a good question but IMO centers too heavily on just the academic ramifications of what the RIAA is trying to pull. This goes much much deeper. The results of this, if the RIAA were to go unchecked, would touch each and every person in the United States. Fair use rights would be trampled by any person anywhere with even the remotest claim to intellectual property. This is just the beginning. I would like to see this question posted if it were slightly re-phrased to cover the "big picture" of how this will eventually affect EVERYONE... not just researchers or computer geeks like us.
MS posted this bulletin to their security mailing list about 8:00 est today. They are doing a pretty good job of notifying everyone in the event of a failure. To get good, up to date information about security go to www.microsoft.com/security. They usually notify of new security issues and fixes within a day or so. The information is there and its not that hard to find. Just in case you still have trouble finding the link for the bulletin mailing list, here is the link. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/security/bulletin/notify.asp
I'm glad someone knew this. I had always assumed that it was some weird reference to the way that some people deal with a fat, well-fed, newly discovered tick - putting it in a spoon and heating the bottom of the spoon with a match or lighter until the tick pops and takes off like a mini-fighter jet.
I wish there would be something like this for the US. It is an absolute disgrace that now TNN has changed its name from Nashville to National and started airing cool reruns of STTNG and I have to watch it though a horrendous bottom bar. Not just a transparent logo in the corner, but a continuous ugly black bar all the way across the bottom. I cant even read the text when they translate for Klingons (the horror).
Finally a small amount of sanity in this insane world. The DMCA and the legal clout that it gives big business may have another small crack now. But it seems everytime the ball gets rolling a little something stops it in its track. Just the idea of them trying to limit how I can watch a DVD or media that I legally obtained burns me up. I have just about had enough of the RIAA and MPAA and other big business shoving people around. I from this point on am not going to "buy" another cd or watch another movie that I don't get for free on the internet. But wait... don't jump to hasty conclusions about me or anyone else that is finally thinking this way. A common misconception in the world these days is that breaking the law is always wrong. WRONG. Many many times the morally correct thing to do is at odds with the "law". If the proper forum were available where appreciative listeners could pool money to send DIRECTLY to the artists that they enjoy listening to, I think many people would line up give their fair share. Its just that these strong arm tactics have me seeing red. NO ONE should be able to dictate how I listen to music or watch TV. Its a sad state of affairs when things have gotten so bad that I even feel animosity towards the cable company for upgrading my cable from analog to digital. Now I am forced to decide between one single show to watch or tape unless I pay more money for another decoder. It would not have been to this point had all of the other things not been going on in this industry. I will resist HDTV until the bitter end. What I watch is my own business... if I want to fast forward past commercials on a show I taped, so be it. I'm just plain tired of being pushed around by these people, and until there is a better way, I simply will not support it/them any longer, and I argue that this does not make me a bad person. It simply means that I am choosing the lesser of two evils. It would take a few big name artists to buck the system and back their listeners and drop out of contracts with RIAA and allow listeners to pay them directly but it has to start somewhere. The bands themselves are the logical starting point. Lawsuits will fly. People will lose money but in the long run we will all come out better than we were before if this were to happen.
As someone else said.. it does have bandwidth limits. An analogy in gnutella would be like 100 people serving a file that only 10 people wanted to download... its really efficient in that scenario. :)
Kind of like people that serve up classical music mp3's
These guys are not as stupid as we would like to believe they are. It is very VERY likely that the beginning forms of this bill were so restrictive that no one in their right mind would pass it. The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for. They may end up making "compromises" that are still unacceptable to the public but are the exact effect they were after all along.
Call me the most radical of them all. But I agree with Mr. Katz... why vote at all when NO one.. even the best candidate (for me) stands for all the issue (I stand for). Sure one representative may believe the same as myself on one or two issues, but not them all. Government doesnt even need politicians anymore. In todays digital world each persons vote could be tallied instantly about ANY issue brought before government. Some will argue that everyone doesnt have access to computers to vote. Make them as readily available as ATM's that are on every street corner. Vote about any and every issue at every level of government. Voting will be rampant and turnout will be much less because anything and everything is being voted on BUT... the end result is that people will search out and vote for only the things they feel important. Ex. something up for election at the local level only gets 150 votes total.. but winning.. the turnout wasnt high for that particular issue but the people that cared about it voted... AND THEY are the ones that should make the decision anyway. I dont need a politician to make my decisions for me because he feels it is in my best interest