Hell, the guy living in the basement next door that you pay to maintain your computer because you lack the knowledge to do so youself, is probably a regular poster here.
Hey!! Don't talk about me like I am not even here!
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent...
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
This is complete and utter bullshit. As we have seen in other articles this only provides the media companies with the means to takedown *anything* posted on youtube or any other similar site for that matter for any reason whatsoever. Talk about Freedom of Speech and anti-trust* issues.
* -- If I don't like something that is said about my product online... I can simply have it taken down with the DMCA.
From the article: "We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:
1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.
2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.
The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations makes it quite clear that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page. "
"So you write a program, I buy it and now I can sell it to anyone I want?"
If you uninstall the software from your machine and remove all copies other than the original you should have every right to sell the original. Notice I did not say make copies of the original and sell those. For instance, I buy a new computer game, FooBar Fighters, and I play the game. Once I am done I should be able to sell the game to a friend (after removing all local copies). I should also be able to make a backup of the software in event that I intend to keep it, *regardless* of encryption or whatever other lame "anti-piracy" copy "protection" is on the original media.
"So you write a song, I buy a recording and now I can sell it to anyone I want?"
This is the exact same argument as the previous, and my answer is the same. You *do* have a right to resell CDs (the RIAA has made a few attempts to make this illegal). Why not your digital music?
My point is that by buying copyrighted material you should have resell rights of what you bought and you should be able to make backups of what you bought in event that the original media is damaged. For these reasons I think the DMCA is a bad law. It attempts to do in law what technical measures have not been able to do.
While I cannot comment on Kino, Cinelerra has a "community version" which is an unofficial fork(?) of the project. This version is generally recommended over the official release because it is easier to build and contains bugfixes that the original may not have incorporated yet. The projects goal is to provide more timely bugfixes/patches to the original Cinelerra as developed by Heroine (which only releases updates every several months). More information can be found here.
For those unfamiliar with the history of Cinelerra, the developer(s) are anonymous so as not to jeopardize their current employment status; apparently the author(s) believe there might be a conflict of interest with regard to their day job(s). Regardless, Cinelerra is an excellent product though it is probably overkill for most home users. The learning curve is relatively steep as well. There is a slightly dated (circa 2003) yet interesting article which has an interview with "Jack Crossfire" (pseudonym for the developer(s)) that covers some of the directions the software is taking which can be found here.
Imagine if the energy spent trying to hogtie the general (and 99%+ totally honest and willing to purchase) consumer were instead applied to making the technology even better?
Because then it would be easier to pirate, losing them (in their estimation) revenue, defeating the purpose of additional investment.
I was under the impression that DRM had little to do with "piracy" and more to do with restricting consumers rights in order to resell content to said consumer.
The video card was standard in his machine. In other words... it was supplied by Apple. The drivers he is using are from Apple. Nvidia doesn't even offer Mac drivers on their site.
"The only cost would be having to have the extra bins for one hard drive w/ windows and one hard drive without for each harddrive option."
Not to pick a nit but it seems that almost every machine Dell sells (excluding laptops of course) has an option to add additional hard drives at the time of purchase. I have to assume these drives do not have a copy of the OS installed. So, other than laptops, there is no extra cost at all.
"Nonetheless, they still don't care what operating systems are available for their computer, let alone whether they can read ebooks or play videos on some OS they don't run. Or whether they can hack the OS on their TiVo.
"...you'll get nowhere talking to them. Sheeple or not."
My anecdotal evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. People that I talk to tend to talk to their friends about what is going on. "Sheeple" are far more receptive to ideas than you give them credit for. Research, however, requires a bit of an effort. An effort compounded by the obfuscation by our dear politicians and the spin the media companies apply with regard to these issues.
Do I care what OS people use? Absolutely not. *I* prefer Linux. Most of the aforementioned people I have spoken with run Windows. DRM in its many shapes and colors affects many OS's regardless of your OS of choice.
"Isn't that just shocking? Tell me, do you know what the labor practices are at the farms where you get your food from? And why is it you're not out on the streets about that?"
What you don't get, apparently, is that this concern doesn't rank very high on the average person's radar compared to other stuff, like _crime_, _taxes_, and other such issues. It's like the "Save the *small rare bird* Foundation" - there's a bunch of folks who care, but they're absolutely dwarfed by those who don't.
That is quite a jump you just made there. I realize fully that there are more pressing matters in the eyes of most people (myself included). However, unlike the "Save the *small rare bird* Foundation" you mention, these are rights that people will miss once they have been stripped away. Other than a select few, almost no one will miss the birds (yes it is a tragedy, but really, how does it affect the average persons life?).
The problem, as I see it, is that the large media companies have intentionally convoluted and obfuscated the issues so that the average person no longer understands what is really at stake - hence my use of the term "complacency". It is far easier to pretend that nothing is happening than to educate oneself on the issues at hand. Are these issues as important as many other issues, such as taxes or crime as you mentioned? Probably not in most peoples eyes. However that does not mean that we should simply ignore these issues simply because there are other more pressing matters to deal with first. This is where I applaud the FSF. They are raising awareness of these issues.
"Why should your cause be at the top of the list, or anywhere in the vicinity?"
I don't believe I suggested that this take precedence over all other issues or that it is "my cause"; I merely implied that it is an issue worthy of consideration.
"Because most people do not care about what the FSF cares about."
Because most people do not care about what the FSF cares about, to their own detriment; sacrificing fair usage rights through ignorance/complacency for the bottom line of large companies.
"entriprise then Cent--oh heck what's the entriprse fedora called?"
I think you are referring to CentOS, however I am fairly sure it isn't an "enterprise Fedora". It is a rebuild of RedHat Enterprise and aims to be 100% binary compatible with RedHat Enterprise. I am almost certain it is not affiliated with Fedora in any way.
"Any app that runs on Linux can also be downloaded for the Mac. "
100% Wrong! Please turn in your/. ID at the door.
*If* the source code is available you may be able to port it to OSX, but native Linux binaries will not run on OSX. Keep in mind that while the userland tools are similar/identical in many ways, you are still dealing with 2 completely different kernels.
Many software packages written for BSD or Linux may be recompiled to run under Mac OS X; such software is often distributed precompiled for Mac OS X in the form of Mac OS X packages. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
If you are serious and not just trolling (I have never experienced that behavior) you may try to ctrl-alt-f2 and drop to a command shell before switching away from Linux. To restore your desktop, simply alt-f7.
I think you misread my reply. I was not commenting on quality of drivers (though I rarely have problems with drivers under Linux as long as they do exist; In fact, I cannot remember the last time I had issues with buggy drivers under Linux Disclaimer: I rarely use Alpha/Beta OSS drivers and the only closed driver I do use is the NVidia driver). I was also saying that there are generally good 2D drivers in most mainstream distributions, so that you don't have to resort to using 640x480x8 as you do with windows. Installing proper 3D drivers after completing the initial Linux installation could be improved, but that was not my point. My point was that if Windows does not recognize a video card during install, that is exactly what you have (640x480x8) until you find the proper drivers.
Maybe I didn't explain myself adequately with regard to a driver framework. What I was referring to was having a wizard style utility (installer) for installing drivers that did not come with a particular distribution so that the user does not have to resort to the command line (think InstallShield). Using ATI drivers as an example of how things should be might need some rethinking. It is only very recently that ATI has put any kind of real effort into producing stable drivers under Windows; forget about Linux. NVidia's drivers might have been a better example in this case (though I do see what your main point was and I do not disagree with that).
All of this said however, I do totally agree that a familiar and easy to use installer for both drivers and software under Linux is something that could serve real purpose in raising acceptance of Linux on the desktop -- as long as the command line options are still available. None of the 50+ servers I administer even has X installed -- and I don't want it installed. I want to keep my machines as simple as possible -- install what it needs to run and don't install anything it won't be using; this simple concept is something MS could stand to learn (but that is a topic for another day:)
Try saying that about Debian Sarge, or about Gentoo, or even about Fedora Core without the proper drivers (which would fit a lot of ATI people...)
There are many distributions available with very simple install processes. CentOS, Ubuntu (or one of it's variants such as Kubuntu or Xubuntu) or any of many others. No one in their right mind is going to suggest Gentoo or anything Debian to an absolute beginner. As far as the driver issue goes, when was the last time you installed Windows (especially if you didn't take the side cover off the machine to see what it was you were going to have to go driver searching for). On the whole, Linux supports much more hardware out of the box than Windows currently does. At least with the desktop oriented distributions there is generally a decent 2D driver for almost all cards, be it VESA or one of the open source drivers so that you arent forced to do your driver searching in 640x480 256 color goodness:)
I do agree that there is still room for improvement and that a "driver installation wizard" framework would be really nice. I also agree that there should be some standardization with regard to where certain things reside (LSB was making some headway it seems, prior to the whole SCO fiasco scaring most of the members away). That said, I cannot remember the last time I had to resort to the command line to install drivers during an installation. The worst I have seen is the equivalent of the "press F6 to install SCSI/SATA drivers" one might have to resort to during a Windows installation to install network/SATA/SCSI drivers under Linux... and I am not limited to storing those drivers on a floppy disk either, the way I am with Windows.
"It isn't always pretty, but the functionality exists."
So it is pretty much as useful as importing macro-infested word docs into OpenOffice? If you have to redo parts of your drawing and re-proof it, how is that a whole lot different from just redrawing it? In other words, how valuable is your time and isn't this still an incentive to stay with AutoDesk rather than moving to the competition?
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, the guy living in the basement next door that you pay to maintain your computer because you lack the knowledge to do so youself, is probably a regular poster here.
Hey!! Don't talk about me like I am not even here!
Free speech doesn't include copyrighted material, and you should know that.
:/
*Blush* I do know that, but in my effort to make a speedy post overlooked the blatent error
Maybe that's the point.
:)
That was exactly the point -- You, however, put it much more eloquently than I
If you elect to send us a counter notice, to be effective it must be a written communication provided to our designated agent...
So this means that the media companies can falsely claim copyright to *any* material and the publisher is provided an email by youtube. However, in order to counter, you (the publisher) have to send a snailmail to them and wait how long before something is done about it? Are you even guarenteed a response?
This is complete and utter bullshit. As we have seen in other articles this only provides the media companies with the means to takedown *anything* posted on youtube or any other similar site for that matter for any reason whatsoever. Talk about Freedom of Speech and anti-trust* issues.
* -- If I don't like something that is said about my product online... I can simply have it taken down with the DMCA.
From the article:
"We believe it is reasonable to equate a "new IP address checking in" with "a new installation of FC6", with the following caveats:
1. Users who have dynamic IP addresses will likely be counted multiple times, which inflates the number by some amount.
2. Users who are behind NAT, corporate proxies, or who rsync updates to a local mirror before updating will not be counted at all.
The anecdotal evidence that we receive from different groups, companies, and organizations makes it quite clear that group (2) is significantly larger than group (1). As such, we believe that the true numbers in the field are higher than the numbers on this page. "
How is that a rebuttal? GP is referring to costs associated with DRM -- the blog you pointed to doesn't mention cost anywhere.
"Dont hold your breath. I dont see them going backwards, only forward, with even more restrictive technology."
FTA: There are indications now that DRM is being considered for obsolescence.
Also... it appears as though some media companies are considering abandoning DRM.
"So you write a program, I buy it and now I can sell it to anyone I want?"
If you uninstall the software from your machine and remove all copies other than the original you should have every right to sell the original. Notice I did not say make copies of the original and sell those. For instance, I buy a new computer game, FooBar Fighters, and I play the game. Once I am done I should be able to sell the game to a friend (after removing all local copies). I should also be able to make a backup of the software in event that I intend to keep it, *regardless* of encryption or whatever other lame "anti-piracy" copy "protection" is on the original media.
"So you write a song, I buy a recording and now I can sell it to anyone I want?"
This is the exact same argument as the previous, and my answer is the same. You *do* have a right to resell CDs (the RIAA has made a few attempts to make this illegal). Why not your digital music?
My point is that by buying copyrighted material you should have resell rights of what you bought and you should be able to make backups of what you bought in event that the original media is damaged. For these reasons I think the DMCA is a bad law. It attempts to do in law what technical measures have not been able to do.
"The vast majority of computer users get software by putting a disk in their CD drive and following instructions."
:)
I think you are over estimating about 90% of the computing populace
While I cannot comment on Kino, Cinelerra has a "community version" which is an unofficial fork(?) of the project. This version is generally recommended over the official release because it is easier to build and contains bugfixes that the original may not have incorporated yet. The projects goal is to provide more timely bugfixes/patches to the original Cinelerra as developed by Heroine (which only releases updates every several months). More information can be found here.
For those unfamiliar with the history of Cinelerra, the developer(s) are anonymous so as not to jeopardize their current employment status; apparently the author(s) believe there might be a conflict of interest with regard to their day job(s). Regardless, Cinelerra is an excellent product though it is probably overkill for most home users. The learning curve is relatively steep as well. There is a slightly dated (circa 2003) yet interesting article which has an interview with "Jack Crossfire" (pseudonym for the developer(s)) that covers some of the directions the software is taking which can be found here.
The video card was standard in his machine. In other words... it was supplied by Apple. The drivers he is using are from Apple. Nvidia doesn't even offer Mac drivers on their site.
True, but in many cases the foundation does own controlling interest in the companies that do own the smokestacks.
"The only cost would be having to have the extra bins for one hard drive w/ windows and one hard drive without for each harddrive option."
Not to pick a nit but it seems that almost every machine Dell sells (excluding laptops of course) has an option to add additional hard drives at the time of purchase. I have to assume these drives do not have a copy of the OS installed. So, other than laptops, there is no extra cost at all.
"Nonetheless, they still don't care what operating systems are available for their computer, let alone whether they can read ebooks or play videos on some OS they don't run. Or whether they can hack the OS on their TiVo.
:)
"...you'll get nowhere talking to them. Sheeple or not."
My anecdotal evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. People that I talk to tend to talk to their friends about what is going on. "Sheeple" are far more receptive to ideas than you give them credit for. Research, however, requires a bit of an effort. An effort compounded by the obfuscation by our dear politicians and the spin the media companies apply with regard to these issues.
Do I care what OS people use? Absolutely not. *I* prefer Linux. Most of the aforementioned people I have spoken with run Windows. DRM in its many shapes and colors affects many OS's regardless of your OS of choice.
"Isn't that just shocking? Tell me, do you know what the labor practices are at the farms where you get your food from? And why is it you're not out on the streets about that?"
Nice Strawman.
What you don't get, apparently, is that this concern doesn't rank very high on the average person's radar compared to other stuff, like _crime_, _taxes_, and other such issues. It's like the "Save the *small rare bird* Foundation" - there's a bunch of folks who care, but they're absolutely dwarfed by those who don't.
That is quite a jump you just made there. I realize fully that there are more pressing matters in the eyes of most people (myself included). However, unlike the "Save the *small rare bird* Foundation" you mention, these are rights that people will miss once they have been stripped away. Other than a select few, almost no one will miss the birds (yes it is a tragedy, but really, how does it affect the average persons life?).
The problem, as I see it, is that the large media companies have intentionally convoluted and obfuscated the issues so that the average person no longer understands what is really at stake - hence my use of the term "complacency". It is far easier to pretend that nothing is happening than to educate oneself on the issues at hand. Are these issues as important as many other issues, such as taxes or crime as you mentioned? Probably not in most peoples eyes. However that does not mean that we should simply ignore these issues simply because there are other more pressing matters to deal with first. This is where I applaud the FSF. They are raising awareness of these issues.
"Why should your cause be at the top of the list, or anywhere in the vicinity?"
I don't believe I suggested that this take precedence over all other issues or that it is "my cause"; I merely implied that it is an issue worthy of consideration.
"Because most people do not care about what the FSF cares about."
:)
Because most people do not care about what the FSF cares about, to their own detriment; sacrificing fair usage rights through ignorance/complacency for the bottom line of large companies.
There. Fixed that for you
"entriprise then Cent--oh heck what's the entriprse fedora called?"
I think you are referring to CentOS, however I am fairly sure it isn't an "enterprise Fedora". It is a rebuild of RedHat Enterprise and aims to be 100% binary compatible with RedHat Enterprise. I am almost certain it is not affiliated with Fedora in any way.
"Any app that runs on Linux can also be downloaded for the Mac. "
/. ID at the door.
100% Wrong! Please turn in your
*If* the source code is available you may be able to port it to OSX, but native Linux binaries will not run on OSX. Keep in mind that while the userland tools are similar/identical in many ways, you are still dealing with 2 completely different kernels.
Many software packages written for BSD or Linux may be recompiled to run under Mac OS X; such software is often distributed precompiled for Mac OS X in the form of Mac OS X packages. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
If you are serious and not just trolling (I have never experienced that behavior) you may try to ctrl-alt-f2 and drop to a command shell before switching away from Linux. To restore your desktop, simply alt-f7.
I think you misread my reply. I was not commenting on quality of drivers (though I rarely have problems with drivers under Linux as long as they do exist; In fact, I cannot remember the last time I had issues with buggy drivers under Linux Disclaimer: I rarely use Alpha/Beta OSS drivers and the only closed driver I do use is the NVidia driver). I was also saying that there are generally good 2D drivers in most mainstream distributions, so that you don't have to resort to using 640x480x8 as you do with windows. Installing proper 3D drivers after completing the initial Linux installation could be improved, but that was not my point. My point was that if Windows does not recognize a video card during install, that is exactly what you have (640x480x8) until you find the proper drivers.
:)
Maybe I didn't explain myself adequately with regard to a driver framework. What I was referring to was having a wizard style utility (installer) for installing drivers that did not come with a particular distribution so that the user does not have to resort to the command line (think InstallShield). Using ATI drivers as an example of how things should be might need some rethinking. It is only very recently that ATI has put any kind of real effort into producing stable drivers under Windows; forget about Linux. NVidia's drivers might have been a better example in this case (though I do see what your main point was and I do not disagree with that).
All of this said however, I do totally agree that a familiar and easy to use installer for both drivers and software under Linux is something that could serve real purpose in raising acceptance of Linux on the desktop -- as long as the command line options are still available. None of the 50+ servers I administer even has X installed -- and I don't want it installed. I want to keep my machines as simple as possible -- install what it needs to run and don't install anything it won't be using; this simple concept is something MS could stand to learn (but that is a topic for another day
Try saying that about Debian Sarge, or about Gentoo, or even about Fedora Core without the proper drivers (which would fit a lot of ATI people...)
:)
There are many distributions available with very simple install processes. CentOS, Ubuntu (or one of it's variants such as Kubuntu or Xubuntu) or any of many others. No one in their right mind is going to suggest Gentoo or anything Debian to an absolute beginner. As far as the driver issue goes, when was the last time you installed Windows (especially if you didn't take the side cover off the machine to see what it was you were going to have to go driver searching for). On the whole, Linux supports much more hardware out of the box than Windows currently does. At least with the desktop oriented distributions there is generally a decent 2D driver for almost all cards, be it VESA or one of the open source drivers so that you arent forced to do your driver searching in 640x480 256 color goodness
I do agree that there is still room for improvement and that a "driver installation wizard" framework would be really nice. I also agree that there should be some standardization with regard to where certain things reside (LSB was making some headway it seems, prior to the whole SCO fiasco scaring most of the members away). That said, I cannot remember the last time I had to resort to the command line to install drivers during an installation. The worst I have seen is the equivalent of the "press F6 to install SCSI/SATA drivers" one might have to resort to during a Windows installation to install network/SATA/SCSI drivers under Linux... and I am not limited to storing those drivers on a floppy disk either, the way I am with Windows.
"Kinda like girls with push up bras: it's misleading, but it's not false advertising."
:)
Bite your tongue!!! Push-up bras are most definitely false advertising
I stand corrected :)
"It isn't always pretty, but the functionality exists."
So it is pretty much as useful as importing macro-infested word docs into OpenOffice? If you have to redo parts of your drawing and re-proof it, how is that a whole lot different from just redrawing it? In other words, how valuable is your time and isn't this still an incentive to stay with AutoDesk rather than moving to the competition?