It's closer to the truth to liken Hughes/DirecTV to a concert...one that you'd need a ticket to get into.
Absolutely, and if you can develop equiment that will amplify the sounds that pass BEYOND the boundaries of the land on which the concert is held then you are free to use it. If you think that it is unlawful to do so, or to do pretty much whatever you like with a signal broadcast to your property then cite the relevant law.
Gross. That's the only word i have for that attitude. Since when is theft a right?
There is no theft involved.
If someone sings on a street corner for money and you choose not to pay you are not stealing anything. Even if you specifically cross the street to go listen, you are not stealing. In the latter case you might feel under some obligation to pay but there is no issue of law involved. It is the same here, DirecTV are broadcasting and anyone who chooses to listen in can.
Equally, so far as I can see, DirecTV have done nothing illegal and it sounds as though they have acted with considerable ingenuity of which they can be justly proud.
Think you need to reread the comment you were replying to, or even just the text you quoted. He said "default homepages are evil", not "user selected home pages are evil". Not that either bother me.
Actually, I think it's the GPL people who are assuming there is an intrinsic right to use code. That's the whole point of "free" software, after all.
Nope, there are a number of points depending on who you ask. Even a cursory examination of the posts under this article or any other public discussion on the subject should show you that different "GPL people" (I guess you mean people who use or advocate the use of the GPL?) have different objectives and priorities.
Precisely because we CAN all write that 'copy-protection bit'. The problem for them is that if nobody is allowed to make a player that circumvents the access controls on CDs they produce then nobody is allowed to make a player that circumvents the access controls on CDs that you or me produce either.
A court would have to see the absurdity of the argument that CD player manufacturers have to get permission from everyone who writes CDs. Consequently the courts would have to chuck the case out straight away and weaken the DMCA from the outset. And even if they didn't then Sony would need MY permission and potentially your permission and everyone else's permission to make a CD player, that's not a situation they want to be in either:)
With DVDs the crucial point is that for the moment they are managing to maintain enough control over the manufacture of DVD hardware and media to try to get some victories while they can, it won't last forever. Right now you and me and everyone else outside of their cartel can't produce CSSd DVDs. That gives them the opportunity to win some victories that wouldn't be possible over the 'copy protection bit' on CDs.
Are you saying you think Free Speech will really go away because people aren't allowed to play encoded DVD content on alternative platforms?
I don't think he is. If, however, you are forbidden under penalty of law from telling people how to decode DVDs, which is what Judge Kaplan found, then Free Speech has already 'gone away'. The right to say only those things that have not been forbidden is not 'Free Speech'.
the acceptance is removing the content from the package, and the consideration is the price paid for the content
Past consideration is no consideration. You can't have acceptance of a deal for which consideration has already passed, it makes no sense. You need to rethink what you're treating as acceptance, or what you're treating as consideration one or the other.
Untrue. There are many companies that aren't involved in commerce. Incorporated charities for example (some carry out commercial activities others don't). It is true though that many companies are commercial entities, that that is no bad thing and that it should be obvious that Apple is one such.
After arguing philosophy with you and trying to persuade everyone else listening in, the next thing is to apply the similar pressure to you that you are applying to them.
At this point I'm dropping RBL, and I won't deal with anyone who is using it.
Ah.. I can't honestly say thatv I feel "pressure" from your er.. was it suposed to be a threat? But goodbye and good luck all the same:)
And, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that MAPS has effectively become socialist thanks to their discrimation by association [to a given IP network number].
I think maybe you should invest in a dictionary, or better still an education, before trying long words like "socialist". You clearly have no idea what it means.
From the article it's non-voting CONVERTIBLE preferred shares. Presumably that's convertible into equity i.e. it's not voting stock today but it can be tomorrow.
The real answer, however, is that piracy helps PC sales, but doesn't do much for the software being pirated.
Of course being pirated doesn't "do much for the software", the software has no interests of its own to further. It certainly can, however, help the company that produces the software.
It can be very effectively used as a method of dumping product on the market. In the short term you don't enforce your copyright. You put all the messages on but take no action against copiers. You allow the spread of copies to build your market share, then you start enforcing your copyright and demanding licence fees.
It's much cheaper than dumping has been for traditional goods because there's no per unit cost to you, all the cost is borne by the "pirates". It's also very hard to make a case against you for anti-competitive practices, after all you are charging a fair competitive price, what can you do about the evil pirates ripping you off?
You note yourself that piracy of Windows and Office are most prevalent in "the developing world" i.e. those markets where building a long term presence will hopefully be profitable but where there is little potential for profitability right now. Quietly encouraging piracy of your products in these markets makes perfect sense.
Does this new program mean that all the terrorists have to do is load the damn thing up and speak freely without worry of repercussion?
So if I understand you correctly, you're implying that at the moment terrorists for some reason don't use the excellent encryption that's already freely available to them? Could you explain the reasoning behind that?
Things like this just plain out don't work. Here's why: To be useful, the recipient must be able to read the message that you sent. Therefore, there is a copy on the recipient's computer. There is no way to force someone to delete information. I can copy and paste text, print out a copy, take a screen capture, or copy the message by hand.
That's right, and locks on the doors don't stop people stealing from your house. After all, it might be your wife who steals everything and she has a key. Oh... but maybe locks can help to keep out those people you haven't actually chosen to trust?
If you are sending messages that you would not want diseminated to people and the people you are sending them to are people who you do not trust then encryption software will not help you. If you are sending mesages that you only want certain people to read, presumably people who you trust, then it can help to prevent others from intercepting the messages.
One problem is that since most people don't already use encryption, they won't be able to read encrypted emails and actually going out of your way to swap keys will carry the "paranoid nerd" label.
If people could just select "secure emails" when installing and never really see the process after that then they'd use it, but it would have to transparently send non-encrypted emails to people without encryption.
One approach would be to have some flag set in the header of each email to show that you had a security capable emailer, so that after the first email received from you the two email programs could silently exchange public keys and from then on any email sent between you would be automatically encrypted.
In principle the keys would be susceptible to interception and replacement but it could get encryption into normal use. Also, any widespread effort to intercept and replace keys like this, or for that matter small scale use against catious/paranoid individuals would be bound to get noticed sooner or later so it should at lesat be more secure than what we have now.
Surely all you'd have to do is include something that is your copyright in the same encrypted archive. A text file containing a few sentences written by you about the DMCA, DeCSS etc. should do.
Doing so rates supporters of DeCSS as SPAMMERS and basically is going to create more and more negative attitudes and opinions in the eyes of major businesses.
Unfortunately not. Major businesses won't be thinking "spammer scum", they'll be thinking "GREAT idea. You think we can use this usenet thing for our mass mailings too?", except for those that already do of course, but they're unlikely to be shocked:)
Re:GNOME guys playing a zero-sum game
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
Just admit it: GNOME is competing with KDE. These partnerships have been zero sum, and KDE is conspicuous by its absence in all this publicity.
Of course Gnome competes with KDE, he explicitly said "We are interested in healthy and friendly cooperation with the KDE project and other free software projects." They are competing with GNUstep too, but the POINT of Gnome isn't to compete with either of those.
Of course in so far as they are developing alternative solutions to the same problems for the same communities they do compete.
Just admit it: GNOME is competing with KDE. These partnerships have been zero sum, and KDE is conspicuous by its absence in all this publicity.
The GNOME Foundation is not about expanding the user base of free software, it's about expanding the market penetration of GNOME. Is it so bad just to admit it?
He does admit it, hence "We're creating a foundation to help us run GNOME well, and we're excited about the recent commercial acceptance of GNOME, but these things are advances for GNOME, not attacks on anyone else."
Of course Gnome is promoting Gnome, there's nothing to be embarassed about in that.
If GNOME ships as a "standard desktop" for Solaris, HP Unix, etc., GNOME "wins."
If you mean that suddenly everyone will stop using KDE then this is absurd, and if Gnome subsequently loses momentum and KDE is perceived by Sun etc. to have surpassed it then Gnome can be replaced just as Motif is being. Gnome seem to be doing well right now, but what's your problem with that?
I don't hear the GNOME Foundation talking about promoting free software for desktop GUIs, I hear it promoting GNOME.
Erm... Gnome consists of fre software for desktop GUIs.
I wish you guys would just admit that you are out to promote GNOME.
I can't really imagine them denying it, just as the KDE people are out to promote KDE. That doesn't mean that either group exists JUST to promote itself.
If HelixGNOME becomes the standard, and it's what is placed in all the work places currently running SUN/HP/Compaq/IBM Unices, do you really believe that forking it will have some sort of impact on the industry? Please tell me you think more rationally than that. The most you'd get is a bunch of like minded fanatics using MyGNOME fork.
Why? If your forked version is GPL'd software (as it should be as a fork of GPL'd sftware) and has clear advantages over the version currently used by Sun etc. then why wouldn't Sun etc. adopt your changes?
However, if you believe that, then it wouldn't be hard for you to believe me when I say I'm forking Linux kernel, and all the GPL'd apps and calling it "JerkIt OS". This OS will over take the current Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer) mindshare, right?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you make changes that are clear improvements then surely there is every chance that they will be incorporated into the "current" Linux kernel, why shouldn't they be? Assuming they are then I don't see why people would want to obtain the version you're supplying under a different name, but so what?
If your changes are sufficiently desirable then it seems likely that others will adopt them,and if they're not then you still get to use them and so does anyone else who wants to.... I just don't see the problem.
It seems to me, if the little click thru license agreement says "By installing this software, you agree to let Sony firewall your PC" and you install the software, there isnt a damn thing you can do to Sony.
The "agreement" part is irrelevant as you can't enter into agreements with things you own, e.g. your computer or your copy of the AIBO software, it isn't a person and it can't make bargains with you (and of course Sony or whoever have no right to prevent you from using your own property so thay aren't in a position to bargain with you at that point either).
However, if the fact that installing the software will firewall your computer is sufficiently clear (not buried in some irrelevant licence agreement) then you're right, you install the software and choose to install the firewall yourself. Of course,in any jurisdiction with even remotely sane consumer protection laws you would be able to return the product if it wasn't clear ahead of purchase just how much damage was necessary to your computer system in order to use it.
Nope, he isn't -- KDE got an offer from a BIG company one year ago to get 30-40 paid fulltime-developers -- and we didn't accept this offer for the reasons Kurt stated.
If they wanted something in return then you need to give some idea of what it was if you want your decision to seem sensible.
On the face of it, rejecting contributions to a free software project just because they come from employees of a "BIG company" makes no sense whatsoever. You actually told this copany that you wouldn't incorporate its code into the project no matter how good it was? Why wouldn't you accept their contributions on exactly the same terms as anyone elses, was it purely to spite them?
Well since you do realise that, it was a bit stupid to ask what it was about theft that people were failing to understand. Theft simply isn't the issue.
But it's a distinction that makes no difference.
If the fact that different words have different meanings makes no difference to you then you're going to have a tough time communicating.
Both result in financial loss to the owner of the property.
Either can, neither must. Anyone who thinks that "theft" is about financial loss is really failing to understand the concept.
If you steal my watch and leave 10 times its resale value, you still stole it. If you steal a photograph that matters to me but has no resale value, you steal stole it. Theft is not about financial loss.
Arson may also cause financial loss, or again it might not. Arson is not theft. Arson is not copyright infringement.
It's just the fact that until recently the market wasn't big enough for anyone to license players for Linux. There are a bunch of people doing that now: LEGALLY.
And, at least in most countries, decss is just one of those ways to do so LEGALLY. Whether or not the USA is one such country is to be determined by the courts, that's the point of what's going on. In most countries there is no equivalent of the DMCA and this is not even an issue.
Support those companies who are developing DVD players for Linux
And at least as importantly, those individuals who are doing so, such as the authors of decss.
How do you know right now that DeCSS is not being used to pirate DVDs?
I have no idea whether it is or not. I also don't know whether someone has the same brand of kitchen knife as I have and right now is using it to stab someone to death, should I be losing any sleep over that?
Slashdot Mirror
It's closer to the truth to liken Hughes/DirecTV to a concert...one that you'd need a ticket to get into.
Absolutely, and if you can develop equiment that will amplify the sounds that pass BEYOND the boundaries of the land on which the concert is held then you are free to use it. If you think that it is unlawful to do so, or to do pretty much whatever you like with a signal broadcast to your property then cite the relevant law.
Gross. That's the only word i have for that attitude. Since when is theft a right?
There is no theft involved.
If someone sings on a street corner for money and you choose not to pay you are not stealing anything. Even if you specifically cross the street to go listen, you are not stealing. In the latter case you might feel under some obligation to pay but there is no issue of law involved. It is the same here, DirecTV are broadcasting and anyone who chooses to listen in can.
Equally, so far as I can see, DirecTV have done nothing illegal and it sounds as though they have acted with considerable ingenuity of which they can be justly proud.
Think you need to reread the comment you were replying to, or even just the text you quoted. He said "default homepages are evil", not "user selected home pages are evil". Not that either bother me.
Actually, I think it's the GPL people who are assuming there is an intrinsic right to use code. That's the whole point of "free" software, after all.
Nope, there are a number of points depending on who you ask. Even a cursory examination of the posts under this article or any other public discussion on the subject should show you that different "GPL people" (I guess you mean people who use or advocate the use of the GPL?) have different objectives and priorities.
Precisely because we CAN all write that 'copy-protection bit'. The problem for them is that if nobody is allowed to make a player that circumvents the access controls on CDs they produce then nobody is allowed to make a player that circumvents the access controls on CDs that you or me produce either.
:)
A court would have to see the absurdity of the argument that CD player manufacturers have to get permission from everyone who writes CDs. Consequently the courts would have to chuck the case out straight away and weaken the DMCA from the outset. And even if they didn't then Sony would need MY permission and potentially your permission and everyone else's permission to make a CD player, that's not a situation they want to be in either
With DVDs the crucial point is that for the moment they are managing to maintain enough control over the manufacture of DVD hardware and media to try to get some victories while they can, it won't last forever. Right now you and me and everyone else outside of their cartel can't produce CSSd DVDs. That gives them the opportunity to win some victories that wouldn't be possible over the 'copy protection bit' on CDs.
Are you saying you think Free Speech will really go away because people aren't allowed to play encoded DVD content on alternative platforms?
I don't think he is. If, however, you are forbidden under penalty of law from telling people how to decode DVDs, which is what Judge Kaplan found, then Free Speech has already 'gone away'. The right to say only those things that have not been forbidden is not 'Free Speech'.
the acceptance is removing the content from the package, and the consideration is the price paid for the content
Past consideration is no consideration. You can't have acceptance of a deal for which consideration has already passed, it makes no sense. You need to rethink what you're treating as acceptance, or what you're treating as consideration one or the other.
COMpany = COMmercial
Untrue. There are many companies that aren't involved in commerce. Incorporated charities for example (some carry out commercial activities others don't). It is true though that many companies are commercial entities, that that is no bad thing and that it should be obvious that Apple is one such.
After arguing philosophy with you and trying to persuade everyone else listening in, the next thing is to apply the similar pressure to you that you are applying to them.
:)
At this point I'm dropping RBL, and I won't deal with anyone who is using it.
Ah.. I can't honestly say thatv I feel "pressure" from your er.. was it suposed to be a threat? But goodbye and good luck all the same
And, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that MAPS has effectively become socialist thanks to their discrimation by association [to a given IP network number].
I think maybe you should invest in a dictionary, or better still an education, before trying long words like "socialist". You clearly have no idea what it means.
If it's non voting stock that MS is buying,
From the article it's non-voting CONVERTIBLE preferred shares. Presumably that's convertible into equity i.e. it's not voting stock today but it can be tomorrow.
And my point was it was 1997 and he STILL didn't have a CD Player. 10 years went by (He was 35 at the time).
10 years went by since 1997 and I missed 7 of them! What happened?
The real answer, however, is that piracy helps PC sales, but doesn't do much for the software being pirated.
Of course being pirated doesn't "do much for the software", the software has no interests of its own to further. It certainly can, however, help the company that produces the software.
It can be very effectively used as a method of dumping product on the market. In the short term you don't enforce your copyright. You put all the messages on but take no action against copiers. You allow the spread of copies to build your market share, then you start enforcing your copyright and demanding licence fees.
It's much cheaper than dumping has been for traditional goods because there's no per unit cost to you, all the cost is borne by the "pirates". It's also very hard to make a case against you for anti-competitive practices, after all you are charging a fair competitive price, what can you do about the evil pirates ripping you off?
You note yourself that piracy of Windows and Office are most prevalent in "the developing world" i.e. those markets where building a long term presence will hopefully be profitable but where there is little potential for profitability right now. Quietly encouraging piracy of your products in these markets makes perfect sense.
Does this new program mean that all the terrorists have to do is load the damn thing up and speak freely without worry of repercussion?
So if I understand you correctly, you're implying that at the moment terrorists for some reason don't use the excellent encryption that's already freely available to them? Could you explain the reasoning behind that?
Things like this just plain out don't work. Here's why: To be useful, the recipient must be able to read the message that you sent. Therefore, there is a copy on the recipient's computer. There is no way to force someone to delete information. I can copy and paste text, print out a copy, take a screen capture, or copy the message by hand.
That's right, and locks on the doors don't stop people stealing from your house. After all, it might be your wife who steals everything and she has a key. Oh... but maybe locks can help to keep out those people you haven't actually chosen to trust?
If you are sending messages that you would not want diseminated to people and the people you are sending them to are people who you do not trust then encryption software will not help you. If you are sending mesages that you only want certain people to read, presumably people who you trust, then it can help to prevent others from intercepting the messages.
One problem is that since most people don't already use encryption, they won't be able to read encrypted emails and actually going out of your way to swap keys will carry the "paranoid nerd" label.
If people could just select "secure emails" when installing and never really see the process after that then they'd use it, but it would have to transparently send non-encrypted emails to people without encryption.
One approach would be to have some flag set in the header of each email to show that you had a security capable emailer, so that after the first email received from you the two email programs could silently exchange public keys and from then on any email sent between you would be automatically encrypted.
In principle the keys would be susceptible to interception and replacement but it could get encryption into normal use. Also, any widespread effort to intercept and replace keys like this, or for that matter small scale use against catious/paranoid individuals would be bound to get noticed sooner or later so it should at lesat be more secure than what we have now.
Surely all you'd have to do is include something that is your copyright in the same encrypted archive. A text file containing a few sentences written by you about the DMCA, DeCSS etc. should do.
Doing so rates supporters of DeCSS as SPAMMERS and basically is going to create more and more negative attitudes and opinions in the eyes of major businesses.
:)
Unfortunately not. Major businesses won't be thinking "spammer scum", they'll be thinking "GREAT idea. You think we can use this usenet thing for our mass mailings too?", except for those that already do of course, but they're unlikely to be shocked
Just admit it: GNOME is competing with KDE. These partnerships have been zero sum, and KDE is conspicuous by its absence in all this publicity.
Of course Gnome competes with KDE, he explicitly said "We are interested in healthy and friendly cooperation with the KDE project and other free software projects." They are competing with GNUstep too, but the POINT of Gnome isn't to compete with either of those.
Of course in so far as they are developing alternative solutions to the same problems for the same communities they do compete.
Just admit it: GNOME is competing with KDE. These partnerships have been zero sum, and KDE is conspicuous by its absence in all this publicity.
The GNOME Foundation is not about expanding the user base of free software, it's about expanding the market penetration of GNOME. Is it so bad just to admit it?
He does admit it, hence "We're creating a foundation to help us run GNOME well, and we're excited about the recent commercial acceptance of GNOME, but these things are advances for GNOME, not attacks on anyone else."
Of course Gnome is promoting Gnome, there's nothing to be embarassed about in that.
If GNOME ships as a "standard desktop" for Solaris, HP Unix, etc., GNOME "wins."
If you mean that suddenly everyone will stop using KDE then this is absurd, and if Gnome subsequently loses momentum and KDE is perceived by Sun etc. to have surpassed it then Gnome can be replaced just as Motif is being. Gnome seem to be doing well right now, but what's your problem with that?
I don't hear the GNOME Foundation talking about promoting free software for desktop GUIs, I hear it promoting GNOME.
Erm... Gnome consists of fre software for desktop GUIs.
I wish you guys would just admit that you are out to promote GNOME.
I can't really imagine them denying it, just as the KDE people are out to promote KDE. That doesn't mean that either group exists JUST to promote itself.
If HelixGNOME becomes the standard, and it's what is placed in all the work places currently running SUN/HP/Compaq/IBM Unices, do you really believe that forking it will have some sort of impact on the industry? Please tell me you think more rationally than that. The most you'd get is a bunch of like minded fanatics using MyGNOME fork.
Why? If your forked version is GPL'd software (as it should be as a fork of GPL'd sftware) and has clear advantages over the version currently used by Sun etc. then why wouldn't Sun etc. adopt your changes?
However, if you believe that, then it wouldn't be hard for you to believe me when I say I'm forking Linux kernel, and all the GPL'd apps and calling it "JerkIt OS". This OS will over take the current Linux (or GNU/Linux if you prefer) mindshare, right?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you make changes that are clear improvements then surely there is every chance that they will be incorporated into the "current" Linux kernel, why shouldn't they be? Assuming they are then I don't see why people would want to obtain the version you're supplying under a different name, but so what?
If your changes are sufficiently desirable then it seems likely that others will adopt them,and if they're not then you still get to use them and so does anyone else who wants to.... I just don't see the problem.
It seems to me, if the little click thru license agreement says "By installing this software, you agree to let Sony firewall your PC" and you install the software, there isnt a damn thing you can do to Sony.
The "agreement" part is irrelevant as you can't enter into agreements with things you own, e.g. your computer or your copy of the AIBO software, it isn't a person and it can't make bargains with you (and of course Sony or whoever have no right to prevent you from using your own property so thay aren't in a position to bargain with you at that point either).
However, if the fact that installing the software will firewall your computer is sufficiently clear (not buried in some irrelevant licence agreement) then you're right, you install the software and choose to install the firewall yourself. Of course,in any jurisdiction with even remotely sane consumer protection laws you would be able to return the product if it wasn't clear ahead of purchase just how much damage was necessary to your computer system in order to use it.
Nope, he isn't -- KDE got an offer from a BIG company one year ago to get 30-40 paid fulltime-developers -- and we didn't accept this offer for the reasons Kurt stated.
If they wanted something in return then you need to give some idea of what it was if you want your decision to seem sensible.
On the face of it, rejecting contributions to a free software project just because they come from employees of a "BIG company" makes no sense whatsoever. You actually told this copany that you wouldn't incorporate its code into the project no matter how good it was? Why wouldn't you accept their contributions on exactly the same terms as anyone elses, was it purely to spite them?
You're right, copyright infringment is not theft.
Well since you do realise that, it was a bit stupid to ask what it was about theft that people were failing to understand. Theft simply isn't the issue.
But it's a distinction that makes no difference.
If the fact that different words have different meanings makes no difference to you then you're going to have a tough time communicating.
Both result in financial loss to the owner of the property.
Either can, neither must. Anyone who thinks that "theft" is about financial loss is really failing to understand the concept.
If you steal my watch and leave 10 times its resale value, you still stole it. If you steal a photograph that matters to me but has no resale value, you steal stole it. Theft is not about financial loss.
Arson may also cause financial loss, or again it might not. Arson is not theft. Arson is not copyright infringement.
Why should having a domain oblige you to have a web site? There's more to ip than the web.
It's just the fact that until recently the market wasn't big enough for anyone to license players for Linux. There are a bunch of people doing that now: LEGALLY.
And, at least in most countries, decss is just one of those ways to do so LEGALLY. Whether or not the USA is one such country is to be determined by the courts, that's the point of what's going on. In most countries there is no equivalent of the DMCA and this is not even an issue.
Support those companies who are developing DVD players for Linux
And at least as importantly, those individuals who are doing so, such as the authors of decss.
How do you know right now that DeCSS is not being used to pirate DVDs?
I have no idea whether it is or not. I also don't know whether someone has the same brand of kitchen knife as I have and right now is using it to stab someone to death, should I be losing any sleep over that?