You are in no way helping them get in trouble. No file sharing software that I have used makes much of an effort to force people to share files in order to download them. It has always been strictly voluntary. Certainly the culture encourages it, but it's not mandatory. If she chooses to share her files, it's her decision.
As to whether she knows that what she is doing is illegal, I can assure you that, unless she lives in a cave somewhere, she does. The RIAA is very proactive in their campaign to educate kids on the evils of file sharing. She may not really understand the fundamentals of why, but she does know that it is illegal.
Note, however, that the fact that it is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong. Considering that as many artists seem to support file sharing as oppose it, it seems to me that it's hard to categorically dismiss it as morally wrong. Teens (and many adults as well) tend to disrespect apparently bad laws. The law may exist for the best of reasons, but unless you can rationally justify it to them, teens will tend to rebel against it. The RIAA's obviously self-serving arguments aside, I think that the case against file sharing is far from convincing.
Both the EFF & ACLU are excellent organizations. While it is reasonable to choose to give to one over the other, it's unfair to characterize the ACLU as part of the "professional charity clique". Prior to the current administration, the ACLU has been extremely conservative in their fundraising, and while I don't know what percentage of their funding goes back to fundraising, historically it hasn't been enough to stop them from vigorously fighting for their goals.
You should also realize that without the ACLU, the EFF wouldn't exist, and if they did, they would be powerless. It doesn't do much good to have online freedom of speech if you can be arrested the first time you say anything offline.
The current leadership needs to go, but I will still wholeheartedly support the ACLU, and recommend that you do as well. You don't need to donate to them-- we all need to make choices as to where our dollars go, and the EFF deserves your money too-- but any support you can give them is quite well earned.
I stand (slightly) corrected. I had read the title as "Memorandum of opinion of the Attorney General", instead of "Memorandum of Opinion FOR the attornet general". However, my basic point still stands. This is a document created by attorneys, appointed by Ashcroft, and stating THEIR OPINION OF THE LAW. In the article, they even state The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal circuits are split. The Executive Branch has taken different views over the years. This is a document basically creating the official Bush administration policy on the matter. Under any other president, this will have little more legal standing then a similar paper writen by me or you.
I haven't read the entire document that you linked above, but you need to be careful to not misinterpret it. Note that it isn't actually a legal opinion, but a statement of opinion of the Attorney General. Specifically, it is the opinion of John Ashcroft. You might disagree with me on this point, but in my opinion, Ashcroft hasn't always been overly concerned with what the constitution actually says, only what he wants it to say. Little things like the seperation of church and state and freedom of speech have little meaning to him. In reality, the document has basically no bearing on the actual law, only on how it will be enforced under Ashcroft.
The obvious counterargument is that the ACLU picks up these very few cases so that it can claim consistency.
And the obvious couterargument to that is that you haven't been paying attention. The ACLU regularly takes on unpopular cases on all sides of the political spectrum. This has caused them almost as much grief on the left as it has on the right. When the ACLU fought house-to-house searches in public housing they were widely lambasted on the left, and praised on the right (the linked article is on a gun rights site). Their Defense of nazis & the kkk have consistently lead to boycotts on the left.
The reality of the situation is that Freedom of speech is a shockingly unpopular idea in the US. Everyone supports freedom of speech for those who they agree with. But supporting freedom of speech for the other guy is a different thing entirely. If you actually look at the cases that the ACLU take, you would almost certainly find that they are not substantially more left wing then they are right wing, with the exception of one area-- morals. Since the ACLU supports freedom of expression in just about any form it can take, the religious right will almost universally disagree with the ACLU. Of course, they are happy to have the ACLU defend them whenever they get sued, but otherwise, they oppose them completely.
"Limited" only in the sense it can't be uploaded for unlimited distribution over the Internet? Something a lot of people don't particularly care about anyway, and wouldn't miss.
No, limited in the sense that I can't make a new CDDA copy to listen to in my car. Virtually all DRM systems won't allow you to make a direct copy of the Audio only portion of the CD-- if they did, it would make the DRM pointless in the first place. But that is why I personally want to copy them. I don't like keeping original CD's in my car since they are likely to get scratched or stolen. Instead, as soon as I buy a CD, I rip it to MP3 for home & portable listening (the Mp3s are not shared), burn an audio CD for my car, then I put the actual CD in a safe place where it won't get damaged or stolen. My purposes for copying are 100% within fair use, but they would be blocked by this DRM if it works, and even if it doesn't, I'd be made a criminal for bypassing it under the DMCA.
Of course the real irony of these systems is that they do not prevent piracy as others have pointed out. All it takes is one person to bypass the DRM & the CD is in the wild. And clearly, as DVD's demonstrate, DRM doesn't even slow down commercial piracy operations. No, the real reason for DRM on CD's is to stop people like me. The RIAA loves it when CD's get damaged or stolen. That means that there is a good chance that I'll buy a new copy of the same CD. That is the only reason that they are looking for "effective" copy protection. They know that it will never stop anybody who is dedicated, but if it can stop casual copiers like myself, regardless of the fact that I'm not doing anything wrong, that means more money in their pockets.
The young girls who are exposed to civil and criminal penalties because they supply the music you download? That is a little like saying that John should go free while his underage prostitute takes the fall. You tempt a child into crime, you should accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Here you are making no sense at all. Who are you saying is liable? Under current law, the penalties for recieving illegally copied material are much less then those for providing it. The young girl in question ceratinly is guilty of the crime, even though you suggest that she isn't. The question is whether the "john doe" lawsuits the RIAA has been using are effective or even legal. The parent poster was presumably arguing that the means the RIAA are using are misguided and at leats bordering on illegal and I think he's correct.
You're obviously using the wrong ripper, have a very slow CD-rom, or a very old computer. I use CDex & LAME, which produces VERY good quality mp3s, and I can easily rip Mp3s of an 80 minute cd in probably 10 minutes. Switch to MusicMatch (which produces crappy mp3s) and you can probably cut that time in half (though you'll regret the decision later). Sure this can vary if the CD is scratched or there are other problems, but in even the worst case scenario, I'd be shocked to get less the 2-4x.
Since my Linux box doesn't have speakers, I do most of my ripping on Windows (I use Windows for multimedia & games, Linux for everything else). But since the same underlying library (LAME) is used on both platforms, I can't imagine that it is significantly slower on Linux.
Of course if the sound card is DRM enabled, it will hear the sub-audible "watermark" in the audio & not record the audio. And of course Soldering irons will have been banned by the DMCA, so you'll already be in prison for you first act.
So Neo Nazis are a leftist group? The KKK? The people who claim that the ACLU are left-wingers are idiots. The ACLU fights to protect the first amendment. This is an ammendment that applies to ALL americans, not just those of one political stripe or another. If you have any unpopular opinion (and you want to voice them), then you should support them in their work, even if you aren't willing to do so financially.
True, the ACLU doesn't fight for the Second ammendment. The NRA does a good job of that. And since I don't see the NRA fighting to support the first ammendment (at least in a broad way), it seems to me that both organizations can happily coexist. Sure, they disagree on many issues, but taken together, they strive to protect your civil liberties. It's worth noting that most households in Hussein era Iraqowned guns. Clearly gun ownership without freedom of speech isn't the panacea that the right wing wants you to think it is.
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand trademark law as well as you think. Considering that the service each company offers is effectively the same, the fact that their target markets are slightly different isn't enough to negate the trademark violation. If Lindows bore enough similarity to Microsoft Windows to be a violation, Google is almost certainly in the wrong here.
How widely known a trademark is has absolutely zero bearing on it's enforcability. Google has a legal responsibility to vet the names they choose. They failed to do so in this case. so they will likely either change the name or pay ACS a licensing fee to use the name.
As for your example of General Motors, you're right that GM can't sue Ford Motor company or Bavarian Motor Works for their use of the word motor. But try starting a company called General Motor Works and you'll be in court before the ink is dry on your business license. The degree of similarity is the problem.
That looks like it's probably exactly what he needs & the price ain't bad either. Wireless Network Product has it for $600. Note this isn't an endorsement... They're just the first of the randomly chosen links on Zyxel's reseller page that carried it.
Few DVD's have ads other then trailers (at least that I have seen), and most trailers can be skipped. When they can't, I agree you have reason to be upset. They also do this in some theaters, and I don't go to those theatres. The last movie that I saw in a Cineplex Odeon theater had 21 minutes of advertising before the movie (about 50/50 ads & trailers for bad movies). I don't go to that theater anymore. Instead, I'm a loyal fan of Landmark Theatres, who have NO advertising before films other then trailers (at least here in Seattle), and the trailers are mostly for movies that I have at least some interest in seeing. Advertising isn't so bad when it's for something that you have an interest in.
I have a problem with advertising because it is everywhere. It is impossible to avoid. I want to be left alone in peace.
Then you should love this advertising. You're right, advertising is ubiquitous. But these ads are basically non-intrusive, unless you actually want to get more information about the product. Since it's completely voluntary to view the offer, it seems unreasonable to be overly upset.
People who bought a Tivo, where one of its significant benefits is to skip ads, have a genuine right to be FUCKING UPSET that tivo is taking this away. Why do you think owners should be happy about this and just accept it? After all, there are bigger problems in the world. Just accept whatever changes Tivo wants to make. Be quite. Don't complain.
But you can still skip the ads! You will get through the ad exactly as fast as before. The only difference will be an icon on the screen. If they make the process intrusive, I'll be upset. And I'm not saying you shouldn't complain. Just understand the issue before you complain.
I suppose this should extend to Microsoft as well.
No, as I'm suggesting you do with Tivo, I judge MS on their history. MS has an extensive history of bad behavior. I've made this point quite clear in every one of my posts on the matter. Tivo has NO history of such behavior. We really don't even know what the plan is. This entire uproar is over one article, with only one brief quote from a Tivo employee. So until we know more, I think skepticism is warranted, but not outrage. Sending Tivo a polite email telling them your concerns with program is appropriate at the present time, but publicly ranting about how "TiVo is dead to me" (not a quote from you, but from another poster) seems a bit premature.
There is a similar argument, if you don't like spam, just click delete. After all, once upon a time, it was just an occaisional spam. You seem to miss the slipery slope connection.
Comparing this to spam is completely invalid. A reasonable comparison would be to website banner ads. And, probably unlike you, I don't mind banner ads, as long as they are not overly intrusive. After all, many of the websites we visit every day wouldn't be here if they did not have advertising support (Slashdot for example). If the ads are very annoying, with sound & flashing colors & such, then I will be more upset. But I have no reason to believe that that is the case. They currently offer this exact service to Networks ("Press thumbs up to record this program") and it's not overly intrusive. Since they have a history of doing this sort of thing right, it seems a tad paranoid to assume that they will do it wrong this time.
I'm not really so upset as you seem to think. I just think Tivo is making a very stupid mistake. Their ads don't fund the progrmaming. The money goes to Tivo. So there is no argument about Tivo's ads supporting the program.
Granted (and you're correct that I was mistaken in pointing this out). But people are always screaming that Tivo is going to be out of business any day now, so any additional revenue is a good thing. And since they are saying that "the advertising revenue will probably bring down the [subsc
Tivo's fastest fast forward is >60:1. I just tested it & it took about 27 seconds to FF through a 30 minute program.
But keep in mind that I'm not arguing against MythTV. MythTV is cool, and I may eventually build another Myth box (To prove that I'm not anti-MythTV, see this post from nearly two years ago. Unfortunately, the software was too immature at the time & my budget ran out so I never got mine working well enough to be usable).
But arguing that MythTV is better then Tivo is silly. In some ways, yes it is better, though I question the common argument that cost is one of the advantages. With Tivo's costing $99 now, I seriously doubt you could get a Myth box with decent performance & picture quality for much less then you can get a Tivo & a years worth of service. And once you factor in your time and effort, it's probably not going to be worth it. On the other hand, many people will enjoy the process, and as you point out, MythTv has several features that Tivo lacks. So, pick your platform that's right for you. But don't assume that just because it's right for you that it's right for everybody.
And don't rant about the evils of Tivo, because they are not evil. Rant about Microsoft all you want, I'm right there with you. But MS has earned the loathing that I feel for them Tivo has earned nothing but respect from me. Do I like every decision that they've ever made? Of course not. But since I don't want them to go out of business, I'm willing to let a few minor things (such as this) slide.
I hate to break it to you, but some people do buy a Tivo for this express purpose. If you don't believe it, then you are out of touch.
So let me get this straight. The only reason you bought a Tivo was to avoid commercials? So you would be equally happy with a box that didn't let you pause, rewind, schedule, etc. as long as it blanked the screen & muted the volume while the commercials were on? I didn't think so. You bought a Tivo because you wanted to have more control over the TV. This doesn't change anything about that. All it does is show an icon on the screen during the commercials. It won't even be on every commercial, since advertisers will have to pay Tivo for the privilege. Big Fucking Deal. You will still be able to fast forward past the commercials just as quickly as you could before, and with the hack someone mentioned earlier, you will still be able to skip 30 seconds at a time & not even see the commercials.
As I said, you probably don't understand the anti-Tivo sentiment because you do not share the loathing of the ads.
Maybe you're right. I only have a normal hatred of advertising. You seem to have a borderline psychosis on the issue. Of course, down the road when the only channels that are available are pay channels, you'll probably be longing for the ads.
Spam will likely be no more intrusive than an e-mail logo that shows up as one more subject line in your inbox. Not the end of the world, really.
This is about the stupidest argument you could have possibly made. This is no more intrusive then the commercials that you are already FFin past. The ONLY difference is a small logo on the screen. Once again, BIG FUCKING DEAL! If they ever start (for example) requiring me to watch an ad before I can watch a recorded program, I'll be screaming as loud as you are. But the current plan is no where near enough to make me upset. There are REAL things in the world to worry about, why get your panties in a bunch over this silly issue?
If part of their effort to make profit is to put craptacular logos and giveaways and contests in front of my face, then they are undermining the very profit they seek. Isn't it obvious that people don't want this? (Maybe not, see my first response above.)
But you don't need to click on the link to view the contest or whatever. YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. If you don't want to watch the ad, continue to fast forward past it like you do now. Like I said, if you don't like the new "feature", switch to MytyhTV. I have absolutely nothing against it. But your irrational hatred of Tivo is silly. Tivo isn't evil. Can you imagine you grandma setting up & using MythTV? A friend's grandma just bought a Tivo, set it up herself & is very happy with it. She's not technically illiterate, but there's no way in hell she could have set up Myth. So if you hate this feature so much, please switch. But keep in mind that it's not THAT big of a deal.
Ok, before you all go & cancel your subscriptions, you might want to READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. "TiVo viewers will see "billboards," or small logos, popping up over TV commercials as they fast-forward through them, offering contest entries, giveaways or links to other ads." Not quite the overwhelming barrage of advertising that some of you seem to be implying. Would I rather the ads weren't there? Sure. But I don't really care that they are.
Contrary to what the post implies, people don't buy a Tivo to "avoid advertising". They buy it so they can watch shows how & when they want, and so that they can fast-forward through advertising. You can still fast-forward through the ads, you'll just be shown a logo on the screen during the ad you're fast-forwarding through. This will likely be no more intrusive then the "Record this program" logo that shows up one ads for certain TV programs already. Not the end of the world, really.
Finally, I want to know, why is there such an overwhelming anti-Tivo sentiment on Slashdot? I understand the anti-Microsoft sentiment. But Microsoft is a company that makes frequently bad products, charges outrageous prices (that you really have no choice but to pay), offers lousy customer service, routinely violates anti-trust laws, Etc.. NONE of these really apply to Tivo. Some people object to their monthly fees, but if you don't like it you can feel free to build your MythTV box. But you'll probably end up spending considerably more in the long run, and be prepared for lot's more hassles, Oh, and your TV litings, though free, won't go as far in advance (last I checked xmltv only gave you one week of listings), and be prepared to upgrade xmltv at least every couple of months, sometimes twice a week (usually with no advance notice-- your listings just stop working).
Tivo makes a solid, VERY well designed product. They sell it cheap, but charge a reasonable monthly fee to use the service. They're even reasonably supportive of the hacking community. Yes, they hope to make a profit in the process. What's really wrong with that?
This isn't quite right. It automatically recorded a program, but it's not like it foprced it on you. I can't prove anything, but I can't imagine that the Tivo wouldn't have behaved any different then it does any other time it wants to record something (As for permission, then let you change channels away at any time). It does this whenever it records a program, whether it's one you asked for or one you didn't. If you can show that it did otherwise in that, please document it with a link. (I rember the case you're referring to... As I recall, the uproar was that it recorded a post watershed program).
Ok, I've had a chance to play with Sitebar for a bit now. It's not perfect from an integration standpoint, but it is good. Some of my (basically minor) issues: It doesn't use the standard firefox bookmarks menu or toolbar, but uses a sidebar. You can't right click a link & select Bookmark Link. The sidebar doesn't refresh when you add a new bookmark (Hey, I said these are minor quibbles...). But even with these problems, unless I find something major as I play with it more, this could be the solution that I've been wanting for a long time.
Granted, this adds a touch of complexity, but not much. And if such a plugin became available, I imagine that people would step in to offer free or cheap hosting. But as I said, though I think there are advantages to a databased backed solution, I would be happy with any solution that works. Someone posted Sitebar, which looks promising. I haven't had a chance to look at it too closely yet, but it might work...
True, MySQL isn't mandatory. And I'd be happy with any solution, regardless of how it works. I tend to think a DB backed solution is a bit more elegant & flexible. You could have a quite powerful solution with no scripting or programming needed outside of the mysql database & the plug-in.
Here's a better summary of what I envision: The database (I said MySQL, but I'm not really picky as long as it's freely available) stores the same basic info as is now stored as XML. It would also have a seperate table to store a log of updates. Everything else would happen on the client side. The plugin would not replace the current bookmark system, only supplement it. As far as the browser is concerned, your bookmarks would still reside in bookmarks.xml. This way, if your server was down, you would still have your (possibly not most current) bookmarks. The only change to the xml file would be a timestamp that would be used by the plug-in to know when it was last downloaded. At startup, and at predetermined intervals, the browser compares the timestamp in bookmarks.xml to the database log & updates the bookmark.xml file accordingly, and if necessary tells the browser to refresh the bookmarks. The plug-in also monitors the bookmarks.xml file & uploads changes as necessary.
Assuming this basic system, it would work quite well as you propose. If there was a browser plug-in to automatically refresh the bookmarks from ftp, I would be quite happy. But if you add a database & a simple script, you get easy access to your bookmarks from any computer (note: the script is optional. All basic functionality except web access is available without a web server). You won't be able to edit your bookmarks using the standard bookmark interface, but you can edit them online. This way, you have the best of both worlds, the ease of managing your bookmarks in the browser & the flexibility of sstoring them online.
Better yet, a firefox plugin that uses a mysql database to store the bookmark data. This would allow realtime updates of the bookmarks across multiple computers. Since I have two computers on my desk, and jump back & forth constantly, having a networked bookmark manager would be a huge timesaver.
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times. The paper has been consistently and stridently right wing, both in the news & editorial departments. Since Moon purchased it, the paper has lost somewhere in the neighborhod of 1 BILLION dollars, but that is apparently a small price to pay for the influence the paper allows its owner to wield. The New York Post is another paper that doesn't even make a token effort at impartiality. Of course, since it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, you wouldn't really expect it to... The Wall Street Journal is better. Their editorial department is -extremely- right wing, but they do seem to at least try to be impartial in the newsroom.
Who? Doing what? Hmm... I had to look up who Carl Cameron is (though I recognized him when I saw him... I rarely watch Fox News). Heh, and now I see what happened, and no, that's ridiculous. It was an embarassing and silly mistake, but nothing remotely similar to what Dan Rather did, which was to not only intentionally ignore counterevidence, but to stonewall all attempts to get to the truth, even criticizing the people who dared to question him.
Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places. The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.
Rather's behavior may not have been ideal, but it was certainly not as bad as the right seems to suggest. And the people calling for his resignation seem to forget one other key fact: That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited. The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard. The actual discredited memos really didn't add anything to the story, except more reinforcement of what we already knew. Oh, and you should also remember that the end result of the "scandal" came out greatly in Shrub's favor: Not only has CBS lost any credibility when it comes to criticisms of Bush, but they have now shelved a much more important story, that of the aforementioned Niger Uranium fraud.
Were the balance of electoral power shifted towards more populous regions, my suspicion is we'd have seen two candidates representing more "cosmopolitan" values than either Bush or Gore, and...
But it's important to note that proportional vote does nothing to shift the vote to more populous areas. Wyoming would still have four times as many electors per capita as California. This would change the dynamics of the election, but it would not fix the problems. The only good solution to the problem that I can see is to go to a popular vote, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, this won't happen as it would require a constitutional ammendment.
Slashdot Mirror
You are in no way helping them get in trouble. No file sharing software that I have used makes much of an effort to force people to share files in order to download them. It has always been strictly voluntary. Certainly the culture encourages it, but it's not mandatory. If she chooses to share her files, it's her decision.
As to whether she knows that what she is doing is illegal, I can assure you that, unless she lives in a cave somewhere, she does. The RIAA is very proactive in their campaign to educate kids on the evils of file sharing. She may not really understand the fundamentals of why, but she does know that it is illegal.
Note, however, that the fact that it is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong. Considering that as many artists seem to support file sharing as oppose it, it seems to me that it's hard to categorically dismiss it as morally wrong. Teens (and many adults as well) tend to disrespect apparently bad laws. The law may exist for the best of reasons, but unless you can rationally justify it to them, teens will tend to rebel against it. The RIAA's obviously self-serving arguments aside, I think that the case against file sharing is far from convincing.
Both the EFF & ACLU are excellent organizations. While it is reasonable to choose to give to one over the other, it's unfair to characterize the ACLU as part of the "professional charity clique". Prior to the current administration, the ACLU has been extremely conservative in their fundraising, and while I don't know what percentage of their funding goes back to fundraising, historically it hasn't been enough to stop them from vigorously fighting for their goals.
You should also realize that without the ACLU, the EFF wouldn't exist, and if they did, they would be powerless. It doesn't do much good to have online freedom of speech if you can be arrested the first time you say anything offline.
The current leadership needs to go, but I will still wholeheartedly support the ACLU, and recommend that you do as well. You don't need to donate to them-- we all need to make choices as to where our dollars go, and the EFF deserves your money too-- but any support you can give them is quite well earned.
I stand (slightly) corrected. I had read the title as "Memorandum of opinion of the Attorney General", instead of "Memorandum of Opinion FOR the attornet general". However, my basic point still stands. This is a document created by attorneys, appointed by Ashcroft, and stating THEIR OPINION OF THE LAW. In the article, they even state The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal circuits are split. The Executive Branch has taken different views over the years. This is a document basically creating the official Bush administration policy on the matter. Under any other president, this will have little more legal standing then a similar paper writen by me or you.
I haven't read the entire document that you linked above, but you need to be careful to not misinterpret it. Note that it isn't actually a legal opinion, but a statement of opinion of the Attorney General. Specifically, it is the opinion of John Ashcroft. You might disagree with me on this point, but in my opinion, Ashcroft hasn't always been overly concerned with what the constitution actually says, only what he wants it to say. Little things like the seperation of church and state and freedom of speech have little meaning to him. In reality, the document has basically no bearing on the actual law, only on how it will be enforced under Ashcroft.
The obvious counterargument is that the ACLU picks up these very few cases so that it can claim consistency.
And the obvious couterargument to that is that you haven't been paying attention. The ACLU regularly takes on unpopular cases on all sides of the political spectrum. This has caused them almost as much grief on the left as it has on the right. When the ACLU fought house-to-house searches in public housing they were widely lambasted on the left, and praised on the right (the linked article is on a gun rights site). Their Defense of nazis & the kkk have consistently lead to boycotts on the left.
The reality of the situation is that Freedom of speech is a shockingly unpopular idea in the US. Everyone supports freedom of speech for those who they agree with. But supporting freedom of speech for the other guy is a different thing entirely. If you actually look at the cases that the ACLU take, you would almost certainly find that they are not substantially more left wing then they are right wing, with the exception of one area-- morals. Since the ACLU supports freedom of expression in just about any form it can take, the religious right will almost universally disagree with the ACLU. Of course, they are happy to have the ACLU defend them whenever they get sued, but otherwise, they oppose them completely.
"Limited" only in the sense it can't be uploaded for unlimited distribution over the Internet? Something a lot of people don't particularly care about anyway, and wouldn't miss.
No, limited in the sense that I can't make a new CDDA copy to listen to in my car. Virtually all DRM systems won't allow you to make a direct copy of the Audio only portion of the CD-- if they did, it would make the DRM pointless in the first place. But that is why I personally want to copy them. I don't like keeping original CD's in my car since they are likely to get scratched or stolen. Instead, as soon as I buy a CD, I rip it to MP3 for home & portable listening (the Mp3s are not shared), burn an audio CD for my car, then I put the actual CD in a safe place where it won't get damaged or stolen. My purposes for copying are 100% within fair use, but they would be blocked by this DRM if it works, and even if it doesn't, I'd be made a criminal for bypassing it under the DMCA.
Of course the real irony of these systems is that they do not prevent piracy as others have pointed out. All it takes is one person to bypass the DRM & the CD is in the wild. And clearly, as DVD's demonstrate, DRM doesn't even slow down commercial piracy operations. No, the real reason for DRM on CD's is to stop people like me. The RIAA loves it when CD's get damaged or stolen. That means that there is a good chance that I'll buy a new copy of the same CD. That is the only reason that they are looking for "effective" copy protection. They know that it will never stop anybody who is dedicated, but if it can stop casual copiers like myself, regardless of the fact that I'm not doing anything wrong, that means more money in their pockets.
The young girls who are exposed to civil and criminal penalties because they supply the music you download? That is a little like saying that John should go free while his underage prostitute takes the fall. You tempt a child into crime, you should accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Here you are making no sense at all. Who are you saying is liable? Under current law, the penalties for recieving illegally copied material are much less then those for providing it. The young girl in question ceratinly is guilty of the crime, even though you suggest that she isn't. The question is whether the "john doe" lawsuits the RIAA has been using are effective or even legal. The parent poster was presumably arguing that the means the RIAA are using are misguided and at leats bordering on illegal and I think he's correct.
You're obviously using the wrong ripper, have a very slow CD-rom, or a very old computer. I use CDex & LAME, which produces VERY good quality mp3s, and I can easily rip Mp3s of an 80 minute cd in probably 10 minutes. Switch to MusicMatch (which produces crappy mp3s) and you can probably cut that time in half (though you'll regret the decision later). Sure this can vary if the CD is scratched or there are other problems, but in even the worst case scenario, I'd be shocked to get less the 2-4x.
Since my Linux box doesn't have speakers, I do most of my ripping on Windows (I use Windows for multimedia & games, Linux for everything else). But since the same underlying library (LAME) is used on both platforms, I can't imagine that it is significantly slower on Linux.
Of course if the sound card is DRM enabled, it will hear the sub-audible "watermark" in the audio & not record the audio. And of course Soldering irons will have been banned by the DMCA, so you'll already be in prison for you first act.
So Neo Nazis are a leftist group? The KKK? The people who claim that the ACLU are left-wingers are idiots. The ACLU fights to protect the first amendment. This is an ammendment that applies to ALL americans, not just those of one political stripe or another. If you have any unpopular opinion (and you want to voice them), then you should support them in their work, even if you aren't willing to do so financially.
True, the ACLU doesn't fight for the Second ammendment. The NRA does a good job of that. And since I don't see the NRA fighting to support the first ammendment (at least in a broad way), it seems to me that both organizations can happily coexist. Sure, they disagree on many issues, but taken together, they strive to protect your civil liberties. It's worth noting that most households in Hussein era Iraq owned guns. Clearly gun ownership without freedom of speech isn't the panacea that the right wing wants you to think it is.
Unfortunately, I don't think you understand trademark law as well as you think. Considering that the service each company offers is effectively the same, the fact that their target markets are slightly different isn't enough to negate the trademark violation. If Lindows bore enough similarity to Microsoft Windows to be a violation, Google is almost certainly in the wrong here.
How widely known a trademark is has absolutely zero bearing on it's enforcability. Google has a legal responsibility to vet the names they choose. They failed to do so in this case. so they will likely either change the name or pay ACS a licensing fee to use the name.
As for your example of General Motors, you're right that GM can't sue Ford Motor company or Bavarian Motor Works for their use of the word motor. But try starting a company called General Motor Works and you'll be in court before the ink is dry on your business license. The degree of similarity is the problem.
That looks like it's probably exactly what he needs & the price ain't bad either. Wireless Network Product has it for $600. Note this isn't an endorsement... They're just the first of the randomly chosen links on Zyxel's reseller page that carried it.
DVD's already do this.
Few DVD's have ads other then trailers (at least that I have seen), and most trailers can be skipped. When they can't, I agree you have reason to be upset. They also do this in some theaters, and I don't go to those theatres. The last movie that I saw in a Cineplex Odeon theater had 21 minutes of advertising before the movie (about 50/50 ads & trailers for bad movies). I don't go to that theater anymore. Instead, I'm a loyal fan of Landmark Theatres, who have NO advertising before films other then trailers (at least here in Seattle), and the trailers are mostly for movies that I have at least some interest in seeing. Advertising isn't so bad when it's for something that you have an interest in.
I have a problem with advertising because it is everywhere. It is impossible to avoid. I want to be left alone in peace.
Then you should love this advertising. You're right, advertising is ubiquitous. But these ads are basically non-intrusive, unless you actually want to get more information about the product. Since it's completely voluntary to view the offer, it seems unreasonable to be overly upset.
People who bought a Tivo, where one of its significant benefits is to skip ads, have a genuine right to be FUCKING UPSET that tivo is taking this away. Why do you think owners should be happy about this and just accept it? After all, there are bigger problems in the world. Just accept whatever changes Tivo wants to make. Be quite. Don't complain.
But you can still skip the ads! You will get through the ad exactly as fast as before. The only difference will be an icon on the screen. If they make the process intrusive, I'll be upset. And I'm not saying you shouldn't complain. Just understand the issue before you complain.
I suppose this should extend to Microsoft as well.
No, as I'm suggesting you do with Tivo, I judge MS on their history. MS has an extensive history of bad behavior. I've made this point quite clear in every one of my posts on the matter. Tivo has NO history of such behavior. We really don't even know what the plan is. This entire uproar is over one article, with only one brief quote from a Tivo employee. So until we know more, I think skepticism is warranted, but not outrage. Sending Tivo a polite email telling them your concerns with program is appropriate at the present time, but publicly ranting about how "TiVo is dead to me" (not a quote from you, but from another poster) seems a bit premature.
There is a similar argument, if you don't like spam, just click delete. After all, once upon a time, it was just an occaisional spam. You seem to miss the slipery slope connection.
Comparing this to spam is completely invalid. A reasonable comparison would be to website banner ads. And, probably unlike you, I don't mind banner ads, as long as they are not overly intrusive. After all, many of the websites we visit every day wouldn't be here if they did not have advertising support (Slashdot for example). If the ads are very annoying, with sound & flashing colors & such, then I will be more upset. But I have no reason to believe that that is the case. They currently offer this exact service to Networks ("Press thumbs up to record this program") and it's not overly intrusive. Since they have a history of doing this sort of thing right, it seems a tad paranoid to assume that they will do it wrong this time.
I'm not really so upset as you seem to think. I just think Tivo is making a very stupid mistake. Their ads don't fund the progrmaming. The money goes to Tivo. So there is no argument about Tivo's ads supporting the program.
Granted (and you're correct that I was mistaken in pointing this out). But people are always screaming that Tivo is going to be out of business any day now, so any additional revenue is a good thing. And since they are saying that "the advertising revenue will probably bring down the [subsc
Tivo's fastest fast forward is >60:1. I just tested it & it took about 27 seconds to FF through a 30 minute program.
But keep in mind that I'm not arguing against MythTV. MythTV is cool, and I may eventually build another Myth box (To prove that I'm not anti-MythTV, see this post from nearly two years ago. Unfortunately, the software was too immature at the time & my budget ran out so I never got mine working well enough to be usable).
But arguing that MythTV is better then Tivo is silly. In some ways, yes it is better, though I question the common argument that cost is one of the advantages. With Tivo's costing $99 now, I seriously doubt you could get a Myth box with decent performance & picture quality for much less then you can get a Tivo & a years worth of service. And once you factor in your time and effort, it's probably not going to be worth it. On the other hand, many people will enjoy the process, and as you point out, MythTv has several features that Tivo lacks. So, pick your platform that's right for you. But don't assume that just because it's right for you that it's right for everybody.
And don't rant about the evils of Tivo, because they are not evil. Rant about Microsoft all you want, I'm right there with you. But MS has earned the loathing that I feel for them Tivo has earned nothing but respect from me. Do I like every decision that they've ever made? Of course not. But since I don't want them to go out of business, I'm willing to let a few minor things (such as this) slide.
I hate to break it to you, but some people do buy a Tivo for this express purpose. If you don't believe it, then you are out of touch.
So let me get this straight. The only reason you bought a Tivo was to avoid commercials? So you would be equally happy with a box that didn't let you pause, rewind, schedule, etc. as long as it blanked the screen & muted the volume while the commercials were on? I didn't think so. You bought a Tivo because you wanted to have more control over the TV. This doesn't change anything about that. All it does is show an icon on the screen during the commercials. It won't even be on every commercial, since advertisers will have to pay Tivo for the privilege. Big Fucking Deal. You will still be able to fast forward past the commercials just as quickly as you could before, and with the hack someone mentioned earlier, you will still be able to skip 30 seconds at a time & not even see the commercials.
As I said, you probably don't understand the anti-Tivo sentiment because you do not share the loathing of the ads.
Maybe you're right. I only have a normal hatred of advertising. You seem to have a borderline psychosis on the issue. Of course, down the road when the only channels that are available are pay channels, you'll probably be longing for the ads.
Spam will likely be no more intrusive than an e-mail logo that shows up as one more subject line in your inbox. Not the end of the world, really.
This is about the stupidest argument you could have possibly made. This is no more intrusive then the commercials that you are already FFin past. The ONLY difference is a small logo on the screen. Once again, BIG FUCKING DEAL! If they ever start (for example) requiring me to watch an ad before I can watch a recorded program, I'll be screaming as loud as you are. But the current plan is no where near enough to make me upset. There are REAL things in the world to worry about, why get your panties in a bunch over this silly issue?
If part of their effort to make profit is to put craptacular logos and giveaways and contests in front of my face, then they are undermining the very profit they seek. Isn't it obvious that people don't want this? (Maybe not, see my first response above.)
But you don't need to click on the link to view the contest or whatever. YOU ARE NOT BEING FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. If you don't want to watch the ad, continue to fast forward past it like you do now. Like I said, if you don't like the new "feature", switch to MytyhTV. I have absolutely nothing against it. But your irrational hatred of Tivo is silly. Tivo isn't evil. Can you imagine you grandma setting up & using MythTV? A friend's grandma just bought a Tivo, set it up herself & is very happy with it. She's not technically illiterate, but there's no way in hell she could have set up Myth. So if you hate this feature so much, please switch. But keep in mind that it's not THAT big of a deal.
Ok, before you all go & cancel your subscriptions, you might want to READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. "TiVo viewers will see "billboards," or small logos, popping up over TV commercials as they fast-forward through them, offering contest entries, giveaways or links to other ads." Not quite the overwhelming barrage of advertising that some of you seem to be implying. Would I rather the ads weren't there? Sure. But I don't really care that they are.
Contrary to what the post implies, people don't buy a Tivo to "avoid advertising". They buy it so they can watch shows how & when they want, and so that they can fast-forward through advertising. You can still fast-forward through the ads, you'll just be shown a logo on the screen during the ad you're fast-forwarding through. This will likely be no more intrusive then the "Record this program" logo that shows up one ads for certain TV programs already. Not the end of the world, really.
Finally, I want to know, why is there such an overwhelming anti-Tivo sentiment on Slashdot? I understand the anti-Microsoft sentiment. But Microsoft is a company that makes frequently bad products, charges outrageous prices (that you really have no choice but to pay), offers lousy customer service, routinely violates anti-trust laws, Etc.. NONE of these really apply to Tivo. Some people object to their monthly fees, but if you don't like it you can feel free to build your MythTV box. But you'll probably end up spending considerably more in the long run, and be prepared for lot's more hassles, Oh, and your TV litings, though free, won't go as far in advance (last I checked xmltv only gave you one week of listings), and be prepared to upgrade xmltv at least every couple of months, sometimes twice a week (usually with no advance notice-- your listings just stop working).
Tivo makes a solid, VERY well designed product. They sell it cheap, but charge a reasonable monthly fee to use the service. They're even reasonably supportive of the hacking community. Yes, they hope to make a profit in the process. What's really wrong with that?
This isn't quite right. It automatically recorded a program, but it's not like it foprced it on you. I can't prove anything, but I can't imagine that the Tivo wouldn't have behaved any different then it does any other time it wants to record something (As for permission, then let you change channels away at any time). It does this whenever it records a program, whether it's one you asked for or one you didn't. If you can show that it did otherwise in that, please document it with a link. (I rember the case you're referring to... As I recall, the uproar was that it recorded a post watershed program).
Ok, I've had a chance to play with Sitebar for a bit now. It's not perfect from an integration standpoint, but it is good. Some of my (basically minor) issues: It doesn't use the standard firefox bookmarks menu or toolbar, but uses a sidebar. You can't right click a link & select Bookmark Link. The sidebar doesn't refresh when you add a new bookmark (Hey, I said these are minor quibbles...). But even with these problems, unless I find something major as I play with it more, this could be the solution that I've been wanting for a long time.
Granted, this adds a touch of complexity, but not much. And if such a plugin became available, I imagine that people would step in to offer free or cheap hosting. But as I said, though I think there are advantages to a databased backed solution, I would be happy with any solution that works. Someone posted Sitebar, which looks promising. I haven't had a chance to look at it too closely yet, but it might work...
True, MySQL isn't mandatory. And I'd be happy with any solution, regardless of how it works. I tend to think a DB backed solution is a bit more elegant & flexible. You could have a quite powerful solution with no scripting or programming needed outside of the mysql database & the plug-in.
Here's a better summary of what I envision: The database (I said MySQL, but I'm not really picky as long as it's freely available) stores the same basic info as is now stored as XML. It would also have a seperate table to store a log of updates. Everything else would happen on the client side. The plugin would not replace the current bookmark system, only supplement it. As far as the browser is concerned, your bookmarks would still reside in bookmarks.xml. This way, if your server was down, you would still have your (possibly not most current) bookmarks. The only change to the xml file would be a timestamp that would be used by the plug-in to know when it was last downloaded. At startup, and at predetermined intervals, the browser compares the timestamp in bookmarks.xml to the database log & updates the bookmark.xml file accordingly, and if necessary tells the browser to refresh the bookmarks. The plug-in also monitors the bookmarks.xml file & uploads changes as necessary.
Assuming this basic system, it would work quite well as you propose. If there was a browser plug-in to automatically refresh the bookmarks from ftp, I would be quite happy. But if you add a database & a simple script, you get easy access to your bookmarks from any computer (note: the script is optional. All basic functionality except web access is available without a web server). You won't be able to edit your bookmarks using the standard bookmark interface, but you can edit them online. This way, you have the best of both worlds, the ease of managing your bookmarks in the browser & the flexibility of sstoring them online.
Better yet, a firefox plugin that uses a mysql database to store the bookmark data. This would allow realtime updates of the bookmarks across multiple computers. Since I have two computers on my desk, and jump back & forth constantly, having a networked bookmark manager would be a huge timesaver.
It's not hard to activate links... http://del.icio.us/> results in http://del.icio.us/. Ok, I know I'm lazy, but an extra 5 seconds in making your post makes it a better experience for all.
Thanks!
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon owns the Washington Times. The paper has been consistently and stridently right wing, both in the news & editorial departments. Since Moon purchased it, the paper has lost somewhere in the neighborhod of 1 BILLION dollars, but that is apparently a small price to pay for the influence the paper allows its owner to wield. The New York Post is another paper that doesn't even make a token effort at impartiality. Of course, since it's owned by Rupert Murdoch, you wouldn't really expect it to... The Wall Street Journal is better. Their editorial department is -extremely- right wing, but they do seem to at least try to be impartial in the newsroom.
Who? Doing what? Hmm ... I had to look up who Carl Cameron is (though I recognized him when I saw him ... I rarely watch Fox News). Heh, and now I see what happened, and no, that's ridiculous. It was an embarassing and silly mistake, but nothing remotely similar to what Dan Rather did, which was to not only intentionally ignore counterevidence, but to stonewall all attempts to get to the truth, even criticizing the people who dared to question him.
Ok, so how about calling for Bush's resignation. He has done every one of the things you suggest, in the case of the Niger Uranium issue, if not several other places. The big difference is that his lies caused the death of 1100+ americans, and thousands of others.
Rather's behavior may not have been ideal, but it was certainly not as bad as the right seems to suggest. And the people calling for his resignation seem to forget one other key fact: That only one relatively inconsequential part of his story was discredited. The more important part of the story was the former Texas Lt. Gov. admitting that he used his influence to get Shrub into the guard. The actual discredited memos really didn't add anything to the story, except more reinforcement of what we already knew. Oh, and you should also remember that the end result of the "scandal" came out greatly in Shrub's favor: Not only has CBS lost any credibility when it comes to criticisms of Bush, but they have now shelved a much more important story, that of the aforementioned Niger Uranium fraud.
Were the balance of electoral power shifted towards more populous regions, my suspicion is we'd have seen two candidates representing more "cosmopolitan" values than either Bush or Gore, and ...
But it's important to note that proportional vote does nothing to shift the vote to more populous areas. Wyoming would still have four times as many electors per capita as California. This would change the dynamics of the election, but it would not fix the problems. The only good solution to the problem that I can see is to go to a popular vote, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, this won't happen as it would require a constitutional ammendment.
+1 Funny