Well, while our lives at home haven't changed a whole lot in the last four years piles of legal precedants are being built up in court that will change our lives quite a bit. The DMCA doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material for non-personal use, and it really doesn't go any further to protect those copyrighted works. What it does do is allow the patent holders for the ecryption technology(like CSS) to determine how their content(legally purchased or not) is viewed. In other words, if they decide that they don't want to license DeCSS to anyone writing software for platforms they don't approve of(Linux), they need only claim DMCA infringement on anyone who goes ahead and comes up with some DeCSS on their own. That's the exapmple that's been played out. Why haven't we seen more examples of this type of legal action? The MPAA and the RIAA haven't had enough time to sue everyone yet, and they need to build up some significant legal precedant.
One thing you wouldn't need to worry about with open source games as long as you have an easy editor is content. There are plenty of people out there who aren't technically oriented who could use an editor to create cool story lines and adventures. It wouldn't be unlike paper roll playing games where you buy modules, except you wouldn't be paying for the modules.
It is irrelevant to argue the authenticity of the slides in this article. It is obvious that Microsoft has held these views for a long time. The debate here is about a philosophy of intellectual property that extends from the desktop to the CD player, and to technologies we have yet to explore.
Software as an industry has only a tenuous existence because it is unnatural to sell something as ethereal as information. Most things bought and sold have a solid physical presence, and therefore build in copy protection. The only way we can keep the value of intellectual property is by placing limits on what we can do with it. If I want to protect a bicycle from being copied I need only manufacture it in a way that would make duplicating it more costly than buying it. To copy protect a software product I have to threaten potential copiers with jail time and somehow monitor their behavior to make sure they aren't doing it. True copy protection requires a virtual digital police state.
Software makers as well as the recording industry lack vision as to what the future will hold. They struggle to maintain what they have now, when they should be worrying about how to adapt to the new order of things. Right now I run SuSe linux, which is nice and green. I use MPlayer(which is better than windows media player IMO) to play movies, and if I want to go through the trouble to learn a bit more I can get Quake working, or Neverwinter nights. All the software I could need for word processing, web browsing etc is already installed. This is an operating system that has practically no market share for desktops, but it is this functional. If microsoft doesn't come out with any major breakthroughs, it's easy to see where the desktop is headed. In the future people will choose the system that is great, allows total freedom, and costs nothing. Software companies need to focus on how they can market their proprietary products in an open source atmosphere.
This is just more proof that hackers are trying to destroy the world by stealing secret codes that could be used by TERRORISTS to crash GPS sattelites and make thousands of campers get lost! We need stricter computer crime laws. There needs to be a ten year minimum penalty for anyone who owns an access device or any computer part that the police don't understand. Let's put them in jail before they can give us software for free!
I think that the Slashdot forums assume enough education in thier readers that they can detect bias on thier own. There is nothing wrong with supporting an OS that you like on a handheld device. Some rant "no applications", but that is just an opportunity for developers. For myself, I don't need a handheld device, so the ONLY way I would EVER buy one is if it came preinstalled with Linux.
I suppose that every virus writer has his/her own reasons for writing their virus. Whatever their reasons, virus writers should get some credit for making networks more secure. Can you imagine how insecure computers would be if there were nobody attempting to exploit their weaknesses? For security to evolve, so must the efforts of destructive code writers.
While it is fair to say that creators of IP deserve to be rewarded for their efforts if that is what motivates them, hard drive protection is not the answer. Where property rights and individual rights conflict, individual rights must be protected. Copyright controls on hard drives are a gateway for other infringements of privacy despite their original intention. Your hard drive can be likened to a room in your house. Your personal, private belongings occupy the room. You arrange the room as you see fit(and people dont patent arrangements of furniture). Whether corporate or government, no one has a right to monitor what goes into or comes out of your room. Even if this means that crime might be more prevelant. It is obvious that all crime could be prevented if everyone was under constant surveilence, but it is not right. We are closer than most people think to being watched all the time. In my own town we have cameras to monitor traffic offenses on at least one major road. It is the responsibility of everyone who wishes to retain some form of privacy to fight these infringements at every step of the way. Privacy extends to your desktop.
I also feel frustrated at the lack of concern people have for our basic freedoms. At this point they feel as though their freedoms are immune, but in reality they are being whittled away on a daily basis. My brother and I made a public access television show that discusses the DeCSS case amonge other things, but I honestly expect little response. The people who are most familiar with these issues are also the most politically apathetic. Most people consider a scenario such as 1984 to be impossible in our society, but things such as mass surveilence are already commonplace. We seem to be on a very slow downward slide that will end in an inescapable pit where the technologies that were designed to make our lives better become the implements of our captors. I personally believe that I will be dead before freedom has trully disappeared from the world, but I fear for my baby girl and her children after her. If there is a shred of hope in this world it lies in the open source community, where profit is only a secondary motivation.
On a lighter note, since the corporations buy out the governments, I suppose that deciding who to buy from is the same as voting.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, while our lives at home haven't changed a whole lot in the last four years piles of legal precedants are being built up in court that will change our lives quite a bit. The DMCA doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to make copies of copyrighted material for non-personal use, and it really doesn't go any further to protect those copyrighted works. What it does do is allow the patent holders for the ecryption technology(like CSS) to determine how their content(legally purchased or not) is viewed. In other words, if they decide that they don't want to license DeCSS to anyone writing software for platforms they don't approve of(Linux), they need only claim DMCA infringement on anyone who goes ahead and comes up with some DeCSS on their own. That's the exapmple that's been played out. Why haven't we seen more examples of this type of legal action? The MPAA and the RIAA haven't had enough time to sue everyone yet, and they need to build up some significant legal precedant.
One thing you wouldn't need to worry about with open source games as long as you have an easy editor is content. There are plenty of people out there who aren't technically oriented who could use an editor to create cool story lines and adventures. It wouldn't be unlike paper roll playing games where you buy modules, except you wouldn't be paying for the modules.
It is irrelevant to argue the authenticity of the slides in this article. It is obvious that Microsoft has held these views for a long time. The debate here is about a philosophy of intellectual property that extends from the desktop to the CD player, and to technologies we have yet to explore.
Software as an industry has only a tenuous existence because it is unnatural to sell something as ethereal as information. Most things bought and sold have a solid physical presence, and therefore build in copy protection. The only way we can keep the value of intellectual property is by placing limits on what we can do with it. If I want to protect a bicycle from being copied I need only manufacture it in a way that would make duplicating it more costly than buying it. To copy protect a software product I have to threaten potential copiers with jail time and somehow monitor their behavior to make sure they aren't doing it. True copy protection requires a virtual digital police state.
Software makers as well as the recording industry lack vision as to what the future will hold. They struggle to maintain what they have now, when they should be worrying about how to adapt to the new order of things. Right now I run SuSe linux, which is nice and green. I use MPlayer(which is better than windows media player IMO) to play movies, and if I want to go through the trouble to learn a bit more I can get Quake working, or Neverwinter nights. All the software I could need for word processing, web browsing etc is already installed. This is an operating system that has practically no market share for desktops, but it is this functional. If microsoft doesn't come out with any major breakthroughs, it's easy to see where the desktop is headed. In the future people will choose the system that is great, allows total freedom, and costs nothing. Software companies need to focus on how they can market their proprietary products in an open source atmosphere.
This is just more proof that hackers are trying to destroy the world by stealing secret codes that could be used by TERRORISTS to crash GPS sattelites and make thousands of campers get lost! We need stricter computer crime laws. There needs to be a ten year minimum penalty for anyone who owns an access device or any computer part that the police don't understand. Let's put them in jail before they can give us software for free!
I think that the Slashdot forums assume enough education in thier readers that they can detect bias on thier own. There is nothing wrong with supporting an OS that you like on a handheld device. Some rant "no applications", but that is just an opportunity for developers. For myself, I don't need a handheld device, so the ONLY way I would EVER buy one is if it came preinstalled with Linux.
Big Blue is IBM, not Micro$oft. First they ignore you.. then they laugh at you.. then they fight you.. then you win.
I suppose that every virus writer has his/her own reasons for writing their virus. Whatever their reasons, virus writers should get some credit for making networks more secure. Can you imagine how insecure computers would be if there were nobody attempting to exploit their weaknesses? For security to evolve, so must the efforts of destructive code writers.
While it is fair to say that creators of IP deserve to be rewarded for their efforts if that is what motivates them, hard drive protection is not the answer. Where property rights and individual rights conflict, individual rights must be protected. Copyright controls on hard drives are a gateway for other infringements of privacy despite their original intention. Your hard drive can be likened to a room in your house. Your personal, private belongings occupy the room. You arrange the room as you see fit(and people dont patent arrangements of furniture). Whether corporate or government, no one has a right to monitor what goes into or comes out of your room. Even if this means that crime might be more prevelant. It is obvious that all crime could be prevented if everyone was under constant surveilence, but it is not right. We are closer than most people think to being watched all the time. In my own town we have cameras to monitor traffic offenses on at least one major road. It is the responsibility of everyone who wishes to retain some form of privacy to fight these infringements at every step of the way. Privacy extends to your desktop.
I also feel frustrated at the lack of concern people have for our basic freedoms. At this point they feel as though their freedoms are immune, but in reality they are being whittled away on a daily basis. My brother and I made a public access television show that discusses the DeCSS case amonge other things, but I honestly expect little response. The people who are most familiar with these issues are also the most politically apathetic. Most people consider a scenario such as 1984 to be impossible in our society, but things such as mass surveilence are already commonplace. We seem to be on a very slow downward slide that will end in an inescapable pit where the technologies that were designed to make our lives better become the implements of our captors. I personally believe that I will be dead before freedom has trully disappeared from the world, but I fear for my baby girl and her children after her. If there is a shred of hope in this world it lies in the open source community, where profit is only a secondary motivation. On a lighter note, since the corporations buy out the governments, I suppose that deciding who to buy from is the same as voting.