Careful throwing that "we" around, because I sure as hell don't have a problem with anyone protecting a trademark that they created and are totally entitled to.
"An additional note--the copyright was not assigned to an open source foundation. It was assigned to an individual."
Yeah, wow, what a surprise. He is also in charge of the kernel, not an open source foundation. Why don't you quit your bitching, it is the way it is, and Linus has every right to protect his baby in whatever way he sees fit, you stupid commie.
You are totally right, we should let the entire machine crash instead of simply ending the offending task, logging the information in the event log, and keeping the operating system running.
They've been trying to protect the trademark since 2000, it's common knowledge.
If you didn't realize you had to license the name, TOO BAD. You totally deserve to get burned if you don't do your homework before you go into business.
"Worst analogy"? My whole point was that PEOPLE are responsible for their actions, not the game system that enables people to perform said actions.
Saying the game enables people to steal is like saying Smith & Wesson enables people to steal. They are using a tool, but they are ultimately responsible, not the manufacturer.
So... I don't get how it's the worst analogy ever. I mean, surely you wouldn't blame the Internet for rampant software and music piracy, you would blame people. Right?
Of course, a lot of morons on Slashdot blame Microsoft for viruses instead of the people that write them. So maybe you're one of those idiots.
Well...if you think about it, they never really needed DRM for their OS before. Basically, using PPC was their DRM. Now, they kind of have to do it, don't they? Otherwise someone will hack OS X to work on any machine with an Intel processor and that will cannibalize Apple's hardware sales.
Most people on this site feel that protecting your profits is unreasonable and immoral, if you haven't noticed...
It never ceases to amaze me the conclusions people jump to, despite having no evidence of their conspiracy theories, and having access to information contrary to the idiocy they're spouting.
Why is this amazing to you? This is Slashdot -- this site is infested with dumb fuckers!
The question is whether or not you are doing something you know is dangerous... nobody can cause a lot of damage from a public phone. A lot of damage can be caused by leaving a loaded gun lying around out in the open. An open Internet connection is somewhere between these two.
Thousands upon thousands of hours of work go into the production of information and software for MSDN subscribers. Do you think that all of the content and software on MSDN just *magically appeared* one day, and Microsoft just decided to put a gate around it and charge a ton of money?
I'm going to call on you to back up your statement with facts:
Please explain how Microsoft charging for an MSDN subscription is an example of price-gouging, and if they are in fact charging too much money, what is a more appropriate price?
taking unauthorized pictures isn't stealing either
Depriving someone of income that is due to them sure feels an awful lot like stealing, doesn't it?
The original poster made clear that it is not about semantical arguments and legal definitions, this is about getting to the heart and soul of what piracy is (and what unauthorized use of someone's likeness, while we're at it), which is basically theft, even if the legal definition is different.
Think about it; you can't "steal" a picture of someone.
LOL! Someone is getting snippy when the truth is revealed.
And anyway, you certainly can steal a picture. You can't take a picture of someone for marketing purposes without their consent, because you are then depriving them of income which is due to them, yadda yadda yadda. Taking something that doesn't belong to youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
Semantic arguments are idiotic... it's just a way of talking yourself into the idea that piracy is A-OK (it's not.)
Slashdot Mirror
Careful throwing that "we" around, because I sure as hell don't have a problem with anyone protecting a trademark that they created and are totally entitled to.
"An additional note--the copyright was not assigned to an open source foundation. It was assigned to an individual."
Yeah, wow, what a surprise. He is also in charge of the kernel, not an open source foundation. Why don't you quit your bitching, it is the way it is, and Linus has every right to protect his baby in whatever way he sees fit, you stupid commie.
You are totally right, we should let the entire machine crash instead of simply ending the offending task, logging the information in the event log, and keeping the operating system running.
What a horrible user experience.
They've been trying to protect the trademark since 2000, it's common knowledge.
If you didn't realize you had to license the name, TOO BAD. You totally deserve to get burned if you don't do your homework before you go into business.
I am fairly certain that some people would equate virtual theft to actual theft...
"Worst analogy"? My whole point was that PEOPLE are responsible for their actions, not the game system that enables people to perform said actions.
Saying the game enables people to steal is like saying Smith & Wesson enables people to steal. They are using a tool, but they are ultimately responsible, not the manufacturer.
So... I don't get how it's the worst analogy ever. I mean, surely you wouldn't blame the Internet for rampant software and music piracy, you would blame people. Right?
Of course, a lot of morons on Slashdot blame Microsoft for viruses instead of the people that write them. So maybe you're one of those idiots.
So if a gun makes me unbeatable in the real world when I decide to mug someone at 3am, I guess it's Smith & Wesson's fault right?
that joke has got to be, what, 5 years old? enoughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Well...if you think about it, they never really needed DRM for their OS before. Basically, using PPC was their DRM. Now, they kind of have to do it, don't they? Otherwise someone will hack OS X to work on any machine with an Intel processor and that will cannibalize Apple's hardware sales.
Most people on this site feel that protecting your profits is unreasonable and immoral, if you haven't noticed...
"digital -end user handcuffs"
You know... as much as it sucks, you have to admit that if people weren't pirating things, there'd be no need for DRM.
Honestly, how can you blame companies for trying to protect their profits when thousands of people are ripping them off every day?
Honestly, you should be mad at the pirates, without whom we wouldn't have this problem.
It never ceases to amaze me the conclusions people jump to, despite having no evidence of their conspiracy theories, and having access to information contrary to the idiocy they're spouting.
Why is this amazing to you? This is Slashdot -- this site is infested with dumb fuckers!
Ok it is DRAMATICALLY LESS LIKELY that someone is going to use a public phone to cause damage. Is that better?
The question is whether or not you are doing something you know is dangerous... nobody can cause a lot of damage from a public phone. A lot of damage can be caused by leaving a loaded gun lying around out in the open. An open Internet connection is somewhere between these two.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to give $300 to a criminal company that funds terrorism.
Wow. Hiding behind anonymity to commit libel... you are a worthless human being.
Thousands upon thousands of hours of work go into the production of information and software for MSDN subscribers. Do you think that all of the content and software on MSDN just *magically appeared* one day, and Microsoft just decided to put a gate around it and charge a ton of money?
Get a clue!
Your logic is severely, SEVERELY flawed.
I'm going to call on you to back up your statement with facts:
Please explain how Microsoft charging for an MSDN subscription is an example of price-gouging, and if they are in fact charging too much money, what is a more appropriate price?
taking unauthorized pictures isn't stealing either
Depriving someone of income that is due to them sure feels an awful lot like stealing, doesn't it?
The original poster made clear that it is not about semantical arguments and legal definitions, this is about getting to the heart and soul of what piracy is (and what unauthorized use of someone's likeness, while we're at it), which is basically theft, even if the legal definition is different.
It's not sloppy thinking at all.
If you can't afford a $99 MSDN subscription then you either aren't a programmer by trade, or you have no idea how to properly manage your income.
Just because someone charges a lot for something doesn't mean that they are price-gouging.
Just because you can't afford it doesn't mean you are entitled to a copy of it.
Microsoft didn't buy Claria. Please stop lying.
The fact that most hardware and software is developed for Windows certainly doesn't hurt their market share either.
Nobody here cared about how busy you are, but since you decided to post that pointless comment, it begs the question:
If those things can't wait... why are you wasting time on Slashdot?
So... that would make six x86 PCs? :-)
Do people really take John Dvorak seriously? All he knows how to do is whine...
MSDN subscription starts at $99 a year... I didn't realize $99 was lots of money, but you know, whatever man.
Think about it; you can't "steal" a picture of someone.
LOL! Someone is getting snippy when the truth is revealed.
And anyway, you certainly can steal a picture. You can't take a picture of someone for marketing purposes without their consent, because you are then depriving them of income which is due to them, yadda yadda yadda. Taking something that doesn't belong to youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
Semantic arguments are idiotic... it's just a way of talking yourself into the idea that piracy is A-OK (it's not.)