the fact that it's possible to do the same thing in principle means nothing. hope that helps.
he just described the method, read from one file on the hard drive and write to the other. This is exactly what TiVo has a patent on and he was doing it in 1980. Again, what part of this is non-obvious other than the fact that "Tivo is good, yay! They must be right!"
"Oh, and the author of cdrtools (cdrecord) just wants to talk SCSI to everything and not care what the device actually is. I'm not quite sure why."
I don't want to sound like a troll but basically the guy is an ass. Just go read some of his posts and draw your own conclusions, but there are alot of things wrong with cdrecord that could be fixed and he simply refuses to do it.
That's not true from the reviews I've read. It comes with an ethernet docking station or USB. Either way, you use the Java software embedded on the device to manage your library. Therefore it's platform neutral, Mac, Linux and Windows. Anything that supports Java.
How exactly does he make it better or cheaper?
he can't make it better if they can just take his improved model and have it on shelves nationwide in a week, and he can't possibly undercut a retailer who not only gets price breaks on raw materials, but who can afford to sell at a loss for two years *in his area* if that's what it takes to put him out of business...
Look, if a company can come along and do it cheaper, faster and better than someone else they should just do it. It's called capitalism. Why do we assume that all inventors need protection? He has obviously sold enough units by this point to make some money, or the large corporation wouldn't be trying to undercut him. He has his incentive, he's made his money back, why should he still be the only one on the market? It's called competition, we shouldn't be so afraid of it that we think we need regulation wherever it pops up. He has his investment back and his incentive, now the free market should take it and run with it.
This is irrelevent since the provision is not necessary. Remember this protects the little guy as much as the big.
How is this corruption if it protects works published under the GPL exactly as much as it protects Microsoft?
Because it doesn't protect anything. It was put in there simply because the recording industry asked it to be in there. That's the corruption. If you asked your congressman for exemptions from this law for yourself in order to protect your copyright you'd be given a polite dismissal. This is in there simply because some entertainment industry lawyer looked at it and went "Hmm, we want to be exempt from this in case we want to spam people with threats". That's it. Like the grandparent of your post said, if there is legitimate copyright infringement notifying the offending party would still be legal without this clause. This is there as a CYA measure from some RIAA-member lawyer, if it had come from anyone else it would have been ignored. Hell, if it had come from any other industry it would have been ignored, MS probably would have been ignored if they'd brought this up. That's the corruption, special treatment for one group above all others by our legislative body.
Starting January 1, 2004, Yahoo! will begin to send you messages, via email or postal mail, about our own products and services. You can control the types of messages you receive by visiting your Marketing Preferences at any time'. It also states, 'And, as always, you can delete your Yahoo! account altogether at any time, for any reason, by going to the deletion page.' I deleted my Yahoo account a month ago. I guess they are lying, because I'm still getting their SPAM."
I think you're a bit off base here. Copyright addresses the problem that producing the original work requires significantly more effort than duplicating that work once it's been created. That was true then, and it's true now -- it can take months or years for an author to write a book, but even the old Guttenberg press could print a vast number of copies with ease.
The problem is copyright doesn't address this problem properly. The argument goes that people won't have enough incentive to create nonrivalrous goods if they aren't given a monopoly on distribution. Economists generally abhor monopolies (real economists, not MBAs), however with copyright it was considered necessary. This has been shown to not only be a false assumption, but that the solution doesn't even efficiently address the problem to begin with. There are very few artists today who wouldn't create artistic works if there was no copyright, in fact several are kept from doing so because of copyright, they can't remix, add or subtract from any work without everyone's permission. They would be creating new material, but can't. Before you chime in with "they should quit being ripoffs" keep this in mind. To paraphrase, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal" Everything is a remix to a certain extent. This doesn't even take into account that the monopoly on distribution is usually signed over to the publisher, giving a handful of publishers a government granted monopoly over an industry.
Second, the wealth of software released under the GPL or another open/free software license shows that there is plenty of incentive to create easily copied works without having to control distribution. Sometimes you just have to scratch that itch, or you need an alternative. The same applies to art, fanart, webcomics, fan fiction, places like the SA.com forums show that there are plenty of people willing to create art that don't feel they have to control the distribution to make it worth thier while. Occasionally you just want to write/draw/model something, it doesn't matter what. Copyright does nothing but stifle this kind of development.
The free market, BTW, does the same thing. The free market (with lots of little independent companies that buy sell and trade goods) creates a mutually profitable self organizing system where people exchange ideas and grow prosperous together.
You say this yet go on to act like Linux isn't a free market. The definition of a free market is "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."
Linux isn't regulated, you can go several places to buy Linux distros as you see fit. There is no restriction of who can and can't sell Linux. There aren't any restrictions on who can and can't modify Linux to fill demand. No restrictions on who can create the supply to whatever demands exist at all.
Compare that with Windows. You can only buy it from Microsoft. You cannot resell it, you cannot modify it. You can't go anywhere else for Windows. If you want something in the OS Windows can't or doesn't deliver you can't supply that yourself without completely dumping Windows. Demands go unfullfilled because of the restrictions of copyright, only Microsoft can fill that demand in your OS.
Which one is the free market? Copyright grants a limited monopoly on distribution, forsaking control of distribution fosters competition among vendors. I don't agree with the article's assertion that it's alturism, I think it's exactly what you're saying only replace Microsoft with Linux. Linux benefits from the fruits of a free market, Microsoft has to slog on under the terms of a monopoly.
Does your DVD player "take control" of your TV when you play a DVD?
Ever tried to skip the commercials at the beginning?
Also, you can unplug your DVD player from your TV. It's not a proper analogy, the DVD takes over the DVD player when you play it.
When you buy music from iTMS, the music takes over your iTunes. You no longer control iTunes and you can't read your music any other way. Palladium is exactly the same, only applied to the BIOS. iTMS is a lesser Palladium. You can still uninstall it, but it doesn't change what it is simply because you can turn it off.
My point was that you don't have to put up with restrictions to get music legitimately. It's just the industry shoving it down everybody's throats because they think they can. Well actually from the looks of it I guess they can.
Come on, if you want legit digital downloads, there's going to have to be some restrictions.
Or you could give your money to people who don't saddle you with restrictions. http://www.magnatune.com/
So what you meant to say was "Come on, if you want legit digital downloads of songs we all have already bought several times over, there's going to have to be some restrictions"
You obviously weren't paying attention to the UT2003 buffer overflows that allowed a server to execute arbitrary code on your computer. There's been many other games that had this problem.
People need to know that they're buying a product that could leave them vulnerable, or at the very least isn't going to be a fair multiplayer experience online. They also need to know what's going on so that when Valve says "delayed till 2004" everybody knows what's up.
It's not like you can warez with this, it's none of the levels, art or sound. I'ts only useful for crackers and cheaters, customers need to know what's going to so that they don't get screwed by people using the source code to comprimise the game.
Mod this man up, I wasn't talking about the latest OpenSSH release getting leaked, it's Half Life 2. The latency problems mean you can't really have secure netcode, however obscurity goes a long way to help.
The CDKey and Steam authentication systems are also supposedly included, so any security control they had before goes out the window, you can't trust the CD Keys or Steam anymore. Not that they were perfect before, but this is going from "wait a bit while the crackers figure out this new authentication system, then it's changed in a patch, repeat" to "here it is on a silver platter, before it's released"
Yeah, we got slashdotted. Ugh! Maybe I shouldve submitted to games.slashdot.org instead:) I'll talk to our hosting company and see if we can get back up.
You are almost right with one point, however: SPEWS does feed on desperation, albeit of a different kind than you mention. Spam has become a desperate situation on the internet, and desperate times call for desperate measures.
As for SPEWS methods not being made public, they do not specify their criteria publically for good reason -- doing so would be providing the spammers with a road map of how to avoid getting SPEWS listed.
I bet you're the first to bitch about Ashcroft locking up people and not telling you why, only to get at thier friends. Or here, let me spell it out for you
You are almost right with one point, however: the PATRIOT act does feed on desperation, albeit of a different kind than you mention. Terrorism has become a desperate situation in the US, and desperate times call for desperate measures.
As for the DoJ's methods not being made public, they do not specify their criteria publically for good reason -- doing so would be providing the terrorists with a road map of how to avoid getting on the DoJ's list.
Nobody uses it outside of osirusoft because it is useless. By default most spam filters included osirusoft, which is the only reason SPEWS was used. Now they don't. Also, spamassassin decided to stop using osirusoft a couple of weeks ago, completely unrelated to this stuff. Still, good riddance.
Now, they have to make that back somehow. Well, if everyone can freely manufacture that new drug, this will be impossible.
Oh no, those poor people can't make money if the government doesn't protect them from the poor evil copycats.
There is no way that someone who comes up with the cure for cancer won't make money, regardless of who copies it. For one, there is the process to make the drug, which is usually not protected by copyright law. You know how to make it because you came up with the drug, nobody else does. Second, there is the inherent advantage of having the people who designed the drug work for you. Put them to work consulting on the production process and you end up with much cheaper to produce drugs. Third, it takes time for other companies to catch up, even without copyright law, in the meantime the original company can make back it's R&D costs if it's smart. The removal of copyright law would only force companies to compete more, not drive them out of business. There would still be money to be made, so people would still research it. Companies would merely get more effecient at what they do because they couldn't expect the government to shut down thier competitors anymore. Meanwhile everyone benefits from cheaper drugs.
You could draw analagous arguments for anything protected by copyright law, from software to movies.
First, it says nothing about people not being able to take breaks. He merely says that he wants people to use thier work computer for work. People can still get up and take a break apart from thier computer. Go get some water, go outside for a smoke, just shoot the breeze. The difference is that the distractcions aren't sitting there on your desktop taunting you.
Re:It's not necessarily the breakup that saddens m
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 1
Actually I think one of the greatest man-made failures in the history of mankind was the point where you somehow missed the boat on that post:)
Slashdot Mirror
he just described the method, read from one file on the hard drive and write to the other. This is exactly what TiVo has a patent on and he was doing it in 1980. Again, what part of this is non-obvious other than the fact that "Tivo is good, yay! They must be right!"
he just did
Man and people say Slashdot users don't have a sense of humor .... oh wait.
You're not very good at this humor thing, are you? :)
"Oh, and the author of cdrtools (cdrecord) just wants to talk SCSI to everything and not care what the device actually is. I'm not quite sure why."
I don't want to sound like a troll but basically the guy is an ass. Just go read some of his posts and draw your own conclusions, but there are alot of things wrong with cdrecord that could be fixed and he simply refuses to do it.
That's not true from the reviews I've read. It comes with an ethernet docking station or USB. Either way, you use the Java software embedded on the device to manage your library. Therefore it's platform neutral, Mac, Linux and Windows. Anything that supports Java.
The problem is copyright doesn't address this problem properly. The argument goes that people won't have enough incentive to create nonrivalrous goods if they aren't given a monopoly on distribution. Economists generally abhor monopolies (real economists, not MBAs), however with copyright it was considered necessary. This has been shown to not only be a false assumption, but that the solution doesn't even efficiently address the problem to begin with. There are very few artists today who wouldn't create artistic works if there was no copyright, in fact several are kept from doing so because of copyright, they can't remix, add or subtract from any work without everyone's permission. They would be creating new material, but can't. Before you chime in with "they should quit being ripoffs" keep this in mind. To paraphrase, "Good artists borrow, great artists steal" Everything is a remix to a certain extent. This doesn't even take into account that the monopoly on distribution is usually signed over to the publisher, giving a handful of publishers a government granted monopoly over an industry.
Second, the wealth of software released under the GPL or another open/free software license shows that there is plenty of incentive to create easily copied works without having to control distribution. Sometimes you just have to scratch that itch, or you need an alternative. The same applies to art, fanart, webcomics, fan fiction, places like the SA.com forums show that there are plenty of people willing to create art that don't feel they have to control the distribution to make it worth thier while. Occasionally you just want to write/draw/model something, it doesn't matter what. Copyright does nothing but stifle this kind of development.
You say this yet go on to act like Linux isn't a free market. The definition of a free market is "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."
Linux isn't regulated, you can go several places to buy Linux distros as you see fit. There is no restriction of who can and can't sell Linux. There aren't any restrictions on who can and can't modify Linux to fill demand. No restrictions on who can create the supply to whatever demands exist at all.
Compare that with Windows. You can only buy it from Microsoft. You cannot resell it, you cannot modify it. You can't go anywhere else for Windows. If you want something in the OS Windows can't or doesn't deliver you can't supply that yourself without completely dumping Windows. Demands go unfullfilled because of the restrictions of copyright, only Microsoft can fill that demand in your OS.
Which one is the free market? Copyright grants a limited monopoly on distribution, forsaking control of distribution fosters competition among vendors. I don't agree with the article's assertion that it's alturism, I think it's exactly what you're saying only replace Microsoft with Linux. Linux benefits from the fruits of a free market, Microsoft has to slog on under the terms of a monopoly.
I think he was being sarcastic. At least I hope he was as incomprehensible as it was :)
Ever tried to skip the commercials at the beginning?
Also, you can unplug your DVD player from your TV. It's not a proper analogy, the DVD takes over the DVD player when you play it.
When you buy music from iTMS, the music takes over your iTunes. You no longer control iTunes and you can't read your music any other way. Palladium is exactly the same, only applied to the BIOS. iTMS is a lesser Palladium. You can still uninstall it, but it doesn't change what it is simply because you can turn it off.
Hate to tell you this, but that URL doesn't work. Also, why would anyone want SPEWS back? They were a horrible blacklist.
My point was that you don't have to put up with restrictions to get music legitimately. It's just the industry shoving it down everybody's throats because they think they can. Well actually from the looks of it I guess they can.
Or you could give your money to people who don't saddle you with restrictions.
http://www.magnatune.com/
So what you meant to say was "Come on, if you want legit digital downloads of songs we all have already bought several times over, there's going to have to be some restrictions"
You obviously weren't paying attention to the UT2003 buffer overflows that allowed a server to execute arbitrary code on your computer. There's been many other games that had this problem.
People need to know that they're buying a product that could leave them vulnerable, or at the very least isn't going to be a fair multiplayer experience online. They also need to know what's going on so that when Valve says "delayed till 2004" everybody knows what's up.
It's not like you can warez with this, it's none of the levels, art or sound. I'ts only useful for crackers and cheaters, customers need to know what's going to so that they don't get screwed by people using the source code to comprimise the game.
Mod this man up, I wasn't talking about the latest OpenSSH release getting leaked, it's Half Life 2. The latency problems mean you can't really have secure netcode, however obscurity goes a long way to help.
The CDKey and Steam authentication systems are also supposedly included, so any security control they had before goes out the window, you can't trust the CD Keys or Steam anymore. Not that they were perfect before, but this is going from "wait a bit while the crackers figure out this new authentication system, then it's changed in a patch, repeat" to "here it is on a silver platter, before it's released"
Yeah, we got slashdotted. Ugh! Maybe I shouldve submitted to games.slashdot.org instead :) I'll talk to our hosting company and see if we can get back up.
I bet you're the first to bitch about Ashcroft locking up people and not telling you why, only to get at thier friends. Or here, let me spell it out for you
Nobody uses it outside of osirusoft because it is useless. By default most spam filters included osirusoft, which is the only reason SPEWS was used. Now they don't. Also, spamassassin decided to stop using osirusoft a couple of weeks ago, completely unrelated to this stuff. Still, good riddance.
Oh no, those poor people can't make money if the government doesn't protect them from the poor evil copycats.
There is no way that someone who comes up with the cure for cancer won't make money, regardless of who copies it. For one, there is the process to make the drug, which is usually not protected by copyright law. You know how to make it because you came up with the drug, nobody else does. Second, there is the inherent advantage of having the people who designed the drug work for you. Put them to work consulting on the production process and you end up with much cheaper to produce drugs. Third, it takes time for other companies to catch up, even without copyright law, in the meantime the original company can make back it's R&D costs if it's smart. The removal of copyright law would only force companies to compete more, not drive them out of business. There would still be money to be made, so people would still research it. Companies would merely get more effecient at what they do because they couldn't expect the government to shut down thier competitors anymore. Meanwhile everyone benefits from cheaper drugs.
You could draw analagous arguments for anything protected by copyright law, from software to movies.
First, it says nothing about people not being able to take breaks. He merely says that he wants people to use thier work computer for work. People can still get up and take a break apart from thier computer. Go get some water, go outside for a smoke, just shoot the breeze. The difference is that the distractcions aren't sitting there on your desktop taunting you.
Actually I think one of the greatest man-made failures in the history of mankind was the point where you somehow missed the boat on that post :)
Its called a GameShark. I know the XBox ones sell at WalMart for 30 bucks. A little memory card with a USB connector on the back.