Why do people keep perpetuating this misnomer?? If you don't use Aero and instead switch to Windows Classic Appearance, Vista works great on a wide variety of machines
If you have a capable video card (and if you don't, $30ish to get one is not really a big ask), you're far better off leaving Aero turned on and offloading it to the GPU. Going back to "Classic" mode can actually be slower, because the CPU is now doing all the work the GPU would otherwise be doing.
Actually I find the Windows (XP, haven't tried Vista yet) scheduler to be quite horrible especially with regards to interactivity. One resource hog and things pretty much come to a standstill. IMO it's worse than O(1) and no comparison to Con's staircase.
Windows NT's scheduler is (and always has been) O(1).
(Can't say I've ever had a problem with its scheduling either - then again, I haven't used a single processor Windows machine in anger since about 1998, so I don't have a lot of experience with how it handles single-processor machines.)
Of course, I'm talking about 3D performance, which you might not need. There are $4000 cards out there, who could possibly need to spend that much money?
Those cards cost $4000 because that's what the market they are sold to will pay, not because they're doing anything a $100 card couldn't do with minor (if any) tweaking.
I get to see this kind of thing first hand, in the radiology industry. You can buy "certified" displays for $thousands, or buy off-the-shell hardware that meets all of the necessary standards for $hundreds.
For another textbook example, look at the storage industry - a "certified" 400G SATA drive for an IBM DS4xxx costs ~US$700, while an identical (except perhaps for some firmware changes) off-the-shelf drive costs ~US$100.
Do we risk going back to having only one big CPU producer?
When would that have been ? AMD have been selling alternatives to (more accurately, up until the mid 90s, licensed copies of) Intel CPUs since, well, basically forever (as far as the PC world counts).
Of course QuickTime is defective by design; it even enables DRM. However, QT isn't tied to the system the same way WMP, IE, et al. are in Windows, so you can easily replace QT with something like VLC.
In actual fact, QT is "tied to the system" in an essentially identical way to "WMP, IE, et al".
It means that the designer specifically designed the device to not do something that is normally expected or wanted, or has been designed in such a way as to annoy the user constantly. In other words, they had to work harder to make sure the device did not work. Typical MS things that are defective by design are DRM, Clippy, and that new security thing in Vista that is so annoying.
Ah. So you mean like a media player that can't display full screen videos ?
(It would be interesting to see what you thinkg DR, Clippy and UAC are stopping you doing that is "normally expected", as well.)
So the more that's spent in inventing it, the longer the patent lasts, i.e. the better it is from the patent holders P.O.V.
This is offset by the fact that a popular, highly profitable patent will "recover" its development cost relatively quickly and, hence, reach the end of its patent protection relatively quickly.
Wouldn't that be a bit of a disincentive to efficiency?
Not really, no. If you have a *good* invention - ie: one that everyone wants - your "development cost" will be very quickly recouped by its popularity (unless, of course, you sell it at a very low level of profitability - and why would you do that?; Or, if the development cost was truly astronomical - in which case the inventor is reasonably due their reward for taking such a risk) and your patent will expire similarly quickly.
In short, "good" inventions will run out of patent protection quickly, encouraging the inventor to create more to remain profitable. "Bad" ones will not, offering a disincentive to "bad" inventors.
(The same would apply to copyrights in my system - popular works enter the public domain quickly, offering both an incentive to the artist to create new works and a good source of "inspiration" for other artists.)
What next, legally mandated profit margins? It's in the same spirit, equally ridiculous in concept and probably just as unworkable in practice.
Ironic. The typical criticism of my idea is that it doesn't allow creators *enough* potential profitability, not that it grants them too much.
Personally, I disagree with copyrights and patents on a philosophical level. However, I also recognise that, while flawed, in principle they represent a the best economic tool we have yet been able to devise for "intellectual property" (as they appear to be the only way to lend scarcity - and hence value - to a resource class with inherently infinite supply). I consider a system that ostensibly allows a creator to, at the very least, recover the expenses they incurred creating their invention/work, to be as equitable as our current social technological and social structures allow. Additionally, such a system also wouldn't disproportionately reward "one hit wonders", like the current one does.
My system would never be implemented, of course, because it offers essentially no opportunity for the gross profiteering that has become the defining aspect of modern "intellectual property" law. I believe it is, however, fair, equitable and incentive-laden for everyone involved.
(There is at least one valid criticism of this idea: the increased bureaucracy needed to keep track of the "development costs" and relate them back to the creatoe - however, I believe that to be a completely reasonable tradeoff for the increased levels of creativity and innovation it would facilitate - the obvious place to do it would be integration into the tax system.)
Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.
Unfortunately the problem isn't just the right-wing Family First wackos, it's also the plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".
The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.
Only to the tiny minority of people who realise how impossible it is.
You sound like one those "only teh 3v1l gheys get AIDS !!" idiots.
Which part of catching AIDS from a blood transfusion or rape is preventable exactly ? Not to mention the only-slightly-grey area involving consensual sex in an ostensibly monogamous relationship where one (or possibly even both) participant is unaware the other is infected.
True, so here's a solution: tie patents to individuals rather than corporations.
I've got a better idea: tie patent length to the cost involved in creating the invention. One year after the cost has been recovered, the patent expires. Copyright terms should be subject to the same system.
You know, I read only the blurbs on most Slashdot stories, and when I don't know any better, those blurbs become part of what I believe to be true about the world. It's disturbing to think about the effect stories like these are having on the collective consciousness. Just one more stupid, wrong thing that soon everyone will "know".
Think about it ? Just click on "Read More" and you can watch it in action !
I was actually cut off by two different Dell "Sales" reps when I asked if I could either get XP or just ship me a pc with a wiped drive for an extra fee. Fscking amazing!! So off I went to apple.com.... Dell = Bags of douche
How did you manage to get Apple to sell you a Mac without OS X ?
For example by bundling anti-virus into the operating system it could be deemed to be using anti-competitive practices. If they increase the price of windows by $5 but include anti-virus in the Operating System then people will stop buying Norton Antivirus.
This has no bearing on whether or not Microsoft *has* a monopoly, it is an example of how they might abuse it. Two different things.
huh?
You are (apparently) arguing that Microsoft and Apple were competitors, hence it was in Microsoft's interest to "keep Apple alive" to offset their possible monopoly status.
My point that this argument makes about as much sense as saying, for example, Solaris's large presence in the server market could be used to offset Microsoft's possible monopoly status. It couldn't, because they are competing in different markets.
In the market Microsoft was found to be a monopoly of (operating systems for x86 PCs), Apple was (and is) not a competitor - they sell no products to it. Hence, Apple's existence has zero bearing on whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly and, therefore, Microsoft derives no benefit from "keeping them alive" (for the purposes of not being considered a monopoly).
Yes, but it can make a hell of a difference when arguing whether or not you are illegally abusing your position as a monopoly through the use of anti competitive practices.
No, it can't. Products outside the scope of the market definition are irrelevant to determining whether that market has been monopolised and the monopoly abused.
Your argument is like saying that Microsoft's lack of presence in the server market at the time demonstrated they weren't a monopoly.
Congratulations on your definitive example of doublespeak.
The law makes the definitions. Personally, I disagree with them and consider the existence of Apple to be a prime example of how Microsoft is not - and never was - a monopoly. The law, however, did not.
Just what fsck do you think it is that they're selling on their website for $129?
Updates for their computers.
MacOS X is for Macs only, it is *not* sold for general purpose usage on "any computer", or to hardware OEMS, as Windows is. This is the critical distinction. Apple only sell OSes as updates to their existing products (which is why every copy of OS X is an upgrade). You cannot (legally) run OS X on anything except a Mac. *That* is why Apple and Microsoft are not (legally speaking) competitors, because they are in two different markets (computers vs operating systems).
The term "monopoly" in the context of this discussion is meaningless outside of the law, and the law is defined by semantics. You make the comment in sarcastic jest, but the semantics of the situation are the only things that really matter - had they been not arranged suitably, Microsoft would never have been found a monopoly in the first place.
Microsoft competes in the Microsoft-compatible OS and software market, and Apple competes in Apple-compatible OS and software market.
No, Microsoft compete in the "x86 compatible desktop OS" market (the one they were found to be monopolising" and Apple compete in the "home computer" market.
Apple and Microsoft are not competitors in any sense of the word that has relevance to Microsoft's "monopoly". As such, Apple strength, existence, or disappearance would be *completely and utterly* irrelevant to Microsoft's monopoly status.
They sure did, as Apple at the time looked like it was following Commodore's path straight down the toilet.
Doubtful. Apple had billions in the bank and a very loyal userbase.
Steve Jobs, the iMac and then the iPod are what "rescued" Apple - none of which had anything to do with any Microsoft products or investments.
They did it so that their lawyers could attempt to argue with a straight face that they're not a desktop monopoly.
They most certainly did not, as any such argument would be doomed to failure before even getting off the ground, since Microsoft and Apple did not compete in the market Microsoft was found a monopoly of (and were even farther away from each other then than they are now).
Go and read the Findings of Fact. Locate the part where the relevant market is defined. Notice how Apple had (and still has) no product offering in that market.
The important issue here is that Apple do not sell Operating Systems. They sell computers and software for their computers. For Apple and Microsoft to be "competitors", either Microsoft would need to be selling computers or Apple would need to be selling OS X to OEMs.
The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs.
Apple and Microsoft do not (legally speaking) compete in the same market. Apple's existence (or lack thereof) has zero bearing on Microsoft's classification as a monopoly.
That's why MS bailed out Apple with a big cash transfusion and commitments for Mac versions of Office about 10 years ago.
Yeah. Microsoft's $150 million in shares really must have helped Apple out, seeing as they were down to only a few billion in cash. I bet everyone in Apple's upper management breathed a sigh of relief when that deal went through.
We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying.
That's because back in the dark ages when *they* were kids, telephones still had cables attached and there was music on MTV, their parents told them they needed to get over it and stop being such a baby. Unfortunately with today's helicopter parents, bringing up the cotton-wool generation(s), the mere _suggestion_ that someone might be doing any sort of vague harm to their precious darlings is enough to get them parachuting in with all lawyers blazing.
Australia looked like the place to be for copyright law, judging from the anecdotes I've read here on/. (Yes, I know, anecdote doesn't equal law, but all the same.)
Not sure where you got that idea from - Australia's copyright laws are, and always have been, very strict. For example, until *very* recently (December 2006) it was a copyright violation to do things like record (most) shows off TV (and is still considered a violation if you're actually watching and recording at the same time) and copy music onto an iPod (even if you had it on CD - because format shifting was considered a copyright violation).
Thanks to the AU-US "Free" Trade Agreement, we now also have those nice anti-circumvention DMCA-style laws as well.
The laws against child porn in the US are defended on the ground that the act of making the child porn itself is illegal.
This logic doesn't even stand up to superficial examination, however. It's trivial to think of examples of "making child pornography" without breaking any laws or harming anyone - two "children" videotaping themselves having sex, or a videotape of consexual sex made in a country with a lower age of consent, or that weird conflcit between age of consent and age of majority, where's its legal to consent to sex, but illegal to consent to that sex being videotaped.
This is without even getting into "porn" that doesn't involve video and intercourse...
I realise that whenever someone hears the words "child pornography" they rarely think of anything other than some sicko raping babies, but it's important to remember that there's a substantial chunk of the population that are - legally speaking - "children", but very sexually active.
The way zune can play ITMS songs? The way ipods can play playsforsure content? I think the issue is not as simple as you think.
It is. The difference is that I'm talking about general concepts and you're moving the goalposts and picking out specific implementations to try and construct a semantic argument.
DRM scheme 1 vs DRM scheme 2 is a different discussion to DRM vs non-DRM. The former is a matter of whether or not a player supports a particular DRM _scheme_, the latter is about whether it supports DRM *at all*.
Not if it's done through legislation.
Yes, even if its done through legislation. DRM is an attribute of the media. The player can support dozens of different DRM schemes and they're all completely irrelevant if the media doesn't activate any of them. If you legislate against DRM-capable players, all you do is create yet another level of incompatibility and confusion in the market, forcing consuemrs to go out and buy more hardware and hardware manufacturers to change their products (again). Plus they have to deal with all the other markets that haven't enacted such legislation. If you legislate against DRM-infected media, no-one except the content producers has to do anything, or bear any costs.
I'm not talking about the DRM in itunes/wmp that prevents you copying media content, but the DRM in the OS that prevents you from copying the OS itself.
Which would be what, exactly ?
DRM is in both the media & the player. Pointing at one or the other is stupid.
No, it's not. DRM-encumbered media cannot play on a DRM-incapable player. A DRM-capable player, however, can play both DRM-encumbered and regular media.
DRM is an attribute of the media. Take that away and the whole issue is moot. Take the DRM capabilities out of the player, however, and the customer will simply get another player, because it is a commodity and it is the media they are really interested in. Attacking DRM via the players is like trying to kill the Hydra by chopping off its heads.
We have DRM because the companies making the product consumers want - the media - are able to dictate terms to the companies making the commodities - the players. Take out the reason for DRM-capable players and the companies selling the players will quickly drop it from their product lines, as it causes them nothing except increased costs.
What if I owned a PSP and wanted to play the New Super Mario Bros. on it? Would I be justified in warezing the rom and hacking my PSP's firmware to play it, so long as I sent my $30 check to Nintendo Norway?
Yes.
Could I request Microsoft release NT3.5 for my super nintendo so that it's cross platform?
Of course. Microsoft, however, would be under no obligation to provide it. Such compulsion would be a completely different situation.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do people keep perpetuating this misnomer?? If you don't use Aero and instead switch to Windows Classic Appearance, Vista works great on a wide variety of machines
If you have a capable video card (and if you don't, $30ish to get one is not really a big ask), you're far better off leaving Aero turned on and offloading it to the GPU. Going back to "Classic" mode can actually be slower, because the CPU is now doing all the work the GPU would otherwise be doing.
Actually I find the Windows (XP, haven't tried Vista yet) scheduler to be quite horrible especially with regards to interactivity. One resource hog and things pretty much come to a standstill. IMO it's worse than O(1) and no comparison to Con's staircase.
Windows NT's scheduler is (and always has been) O(1).
(Can't say I've ever had a problem with its scheduling either - then again, I haven't used a single processor Windows machine in anger since about 1998, so I don't have a lot of experience with how it handles single-processor machines.)
Of course, I'm talking about 3D performance, which you might not need. There are $4000 cards out there, who could possibly need to spend that much money?
Those cards cost $4000 because that's what the market they are sold to will pay, not because they're doing anything a $100 card couldn't do with minor (if any) tweaking.
I get to see this kind of thing first hand, in the radiology industry. You can buy "certified" displays for $thousands, or buy off-the-shell hardware that meets all of the necessary standards for $hundreds.
For another textbook example, look at the storage industry - a "certified" 400G SATA drive for an IBM DS4xxx costs ~US$700, while an identical (except perhaps for some firmware changes) off-the-shelf drive costs ~US$100.
Do we risk going back to having only one big CPU producer?
When would that have been ? AMD have been selling alternatives to (more accurately, up until the mid 90s, licensed copies of) Intel CPUs since, well, basically forever (as far as the PC world counts).
Of course QuickTime is defective by design; it even enables DRM. However, QT isn't tied to the system the same way WMP, IE, et al. are in Windows, so you can easily replace QT with something like VLC.
In actual fact, QT is "tied to the system" in an essentially identical way to "WMP, IE, et al".
It means that the designer specifically designed the device to not do something that is normally expected or wanted, or has been designed in such a way as to annoy the user constantly. In other words, they had to work harder to make sure the device did not work. Typical MS things that are defective by design are DRM, Clippy, and that new security thing in Vista that is so annoying.
Ah. So you mean like a media player that can't display full screen videos ?
(It would be interesting to see what you thinkg DR, Clippy and UAC are stopping you doing that is "normally expected", as well.)
So the more that's spent in inventing it, the longer the patent lasts, i.e. the better it is from the patent holders P.O.V.
This is offset by the fact that a popular, highly profitable patent will "recover" its development cost relatively quickly and, hence, reach the end of its patent protection relatively quickly.
Wouldn't that be a bit of a disincentive to efficiency?
Not really, no. If you have a *good* invention - ie: one that everyone wants - your "development cost" will be very quickly recouped by its popularity (unless, of course, you sell it at a very low level of profitability - and why would you do that?; Or, if the development cost was truly astronomical - in which case the inventor is reasonably due their reward for taking such a risk) and your patent will expire similarly quickly.
In short, "good" inventions will run out of patent protection quickly, encouraging the inventor to create more to remain profitable. "Bad" ones will not, offering a disincentive to "bad" inventors.
(The same would apply to copyrights in my system - popular works enter the public domain quickly, offering both an incentive to the artist to create new works and a good source of "inspiration" for other artists.)
What next, legally mandated profit margins? It's in the same spirit, equally ridiculous in concept and probably just as unworkable in practice.
Ironic. The typical criticism of my idea is that it doesn't allow creators *enough* potential profitability, not that it grants them too much.
Personally, I disagree with copyrights and patents on a philosophical level. However, I also recognise that, while flawed, in principle they represent a the best economic tool we have yet been able to devise for "intellectual property" (as they appear to be the only way to lend scarcity - and hence value - to a resource class with inherently infinite supply). I consider a system that ostensibly allows a creator to, at the very least, recover the expenses they incurred creating their invention/work, to be as equitable as our current social technological and social structures allow. Additionally, such a system also wouldn't disproportionately reward "one hit wonders", like the current one does.
My system would never be implemented, of course, because it offers essentially no opportunity for the gross profiteering that has become the defining aspect of modern "intellectual property" law. I believe it is, however, fair, equitable and incentive-laden for everyone involved.
(There is at least one valid criticism of this idea: the increased bureaucracy needed to keep track of the "development costs" and relate them back to the creatoe - however, I believe that to be a completely reasonable tradeoff for the increased levels of creativity and innovation it would facilitate - the obvious place to do it would be integration into the tax system.)
Right now there is a push to force ISPs to use content filtering, in fact the Fed Govt has a tender out now to evaluate effectiveness or otherwise of filtering technology.
Unfortunately the problem isn't just the right-wing Family First wackos, it's also the plethora of unethical IT consultants in search of a good pork barrel telling them: "Censor the Internet ? Sure, no worries, we can have that up and running in 6 months if you just give us $millions".
The more they try to muzzle the Internet public, the more foolish they look.
Only to the tiny minority of people who realise how impossible it is.
First of all, AIDS is a preventable disease.
You sound like one those "only teh 3v1l gheys get AIDS !!" idiots.
Which part of catching AIDS from a blood transfusion or rape is preventable exactly ? Not to mention the only-slightly-grey area involving consensual sex in an ostensibly monogamous relationship where one (or possibly even both) participant is unaware the other is infected.
True, so here's a solution: tie patents to individuals rather than corporations.
I've got a better idea: tie patent length to the cost involved in creating the invention. One year after the cost has been recovered, the patent expires. Copyright terms should be subject to the same system.
You know, I read only the blurbs on most Slashdot stories, and when I don't know any better, those blurbs become part of what I believe to be true about the world. It's disturbing to think about the effect stories like these are having on the collective consciousness. Just one more stupid, wrong thing that soon everyone will "know".
Think about it ? Just click on "Read More" and you can watch it in action !
I was actually cut off by two different Dell "Sales" reps when I asked if I could either get XP or just ship me a pc with a wiped drive for an extra fee. Fscking amazing!! So off I went to apple.com.... Dell = Bags of douche
How did you manage to get Apple to sell you a Mac without OS X ?
For example by bundling anti-virus into the operating system it could be deemed to be using anti-competitive practices. If they increase the price of windows by $5 but include anti-virus in the Operating System then people will stop buying Norton Antivirus.
This has no bearing on whether or not Microsoft *has* a monopoly, it is an example of how they might abuse it. Two different things.
huh?
You are (apparently) arguing that Microsoft and Apple were competitors, hence it was in Microsoft's interest to "keep Apple alive" to offset their possible monopoly status.
My point that this argument makes about as much sense as saying, for example, Solaris's large presence in the server market could be used to offset Microsoft's possible monopoly status. It couldn't, because they are competing in different markets.
In the market Microsoft was found to be a monopoly of (operating systems for x86 PCs), Apple was (and is) not a competitor - they sell no products to it. Hence, Apple's existence has zero bearing on whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly and, therefore, Microsoft derives no benefit from "keeping them alive" (for the purposes of not being considered a monopoly).
Yes, but it can make a hell of a difference when arguing whether or not you are illegally abusing your position as a monopoly through the use of anti competitive practices.
No, it can't. Products outside the scope of the market definition are irrelevant to determining whether that market has been monopolised and the monopoly abused.
Your argument is like saying that Microsoft's lack of presence in the server market at the time demonstrated they weren't a monopoly.
Congratulations on your definitive example of doublespeak.
The law makes the definitions. Personally, I disagree with them and consider the existence of Apple to be a prime example of how Microsoft is not - and never was - a monopoly. The law, however, did not.
Just what fsck do you think it is that they're selling on their website for $129?
Updates for their computers.
MacOS X is for Macs only, it is *not* sold for general purpose usage on "any computer", or to hardware OEMS, as Windows is. This is the critical distinction. Apple only sell OSes as updates to their existing products (which is why every copy of OS X is an upgrade). You cannot (legally) run OS X on anything except a Mac. *That* is why Apple and Microsoft are not (legally speaking) competitors, because they are in two different markets (computers vs operating systems).
You're right, Mr. Semantics: [...]
The term "monopoly" in the context of this discussion is meaningless outside of the law, and the law is defined by semantics. You make the comment in sarcastic jest, but the semantics of the situation are the only things that really matter - had they been not arranged suitably, Microsoft would never have been found a monopoly in the first place.
Microsoft competes in the Microsoft-compatible OS and software market, and Apple competes in Apple-compatible OS and software market.
No, Microsoft compete in the "x86 compatible desktop OS" market (the one they were found to be monopolising" and Apple compete in the "home computer" market.
Apple and Microsoft are not competitors in any sense of the word that has relevance to Microsoft's "monopoly". As such, Apple strength, existence, or disappearance would be *completely and utterly* irrelevant to Microsoft's monopoly status.
They sure did, as Apple at the time looked like it was following Commodore's path straight down the toilet.
Doubtful. Apple had billions in the bank and a very loyal userbase.
Steve Jobs, the iMac and then the iPod are what "rescued" Apple - none of which had anything to do with any Microsoft products or investments.
They did it so that their lawyers could attempt to argue with a straight face that they're not a desktop monopoly.
They most certainly did not, as any such argument would be doomed to failure before even getting off the ground, since Microsoft and Apple did not compete in the market Microsoft was found a monopoly of (and were even farther away from each other then than they are now).
Go and read the Findings of Fact. Locate the part where the relevant market is defined. Notice how Apple had (and still has) no product offering in that market.
The important issue here is that Apple do not sell Operating Systems. They sell computers and software for their computers. For Apple and Microsoft to be "competitors", either Microsoft would need to be selling computers or Apple would need to be selling OS X to OEMs.
The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs.
Apple and Microsoft do not (legally speaking) compete in the same market. Apple's existence (or lack thereof) has zero bearing on Microsoft's classification as a monopoly.
That's why MS bailed out Apple with a big cash transfusion and commitments for Mac versions of Office about 10 years ago.
Yeah. Microsoft's $150 million in shares really must have helped Apple out, seeing as they were down to only a few billion in cash. I bet everyone in Apple's upper management breathed a sigh of relief when that deal went through.
We're talking about children here. Most adults would brush off what is called cyber bullying.
That's because back in the dark ages when *they* were kids, telephones still had cables attached and there was music on MTV, their parents told them they needed to get over it and stop being such a baby. Unfortunately with today's helicopter parents, bringing up the cotton-wool generation(s), the mere _suggestion_ that someone might be doing any sort of vague harm to their precious darlings is enough to get them parachuting in with all lawyers blazing.
2) There's a way to address the DRM laden Vista (either a hack/patch/new version)
What, exactly, are you trying to "address" ?
Sorry, I can't resist a dig at that stupid concept.
What stupid concept ? Disk caching ? Because that's all ReadyBoost ultimately is - a disk cache.
Australia looked like the place to be for copyright law, judging from the anecdotes I've read here on /. (Yes, I know, anecdote doesn't equal law, but all the same.)
Not sure where you got that idea from - Australia's copyright laws are, and always have been, very strict. For example, until *very* recently (December 2006) it was a copyright violation to do things like record (most) shows off TV (and is still considered a violation if you're actually watching and recording at the same time) and copy music onto an iPod (even if you had it on CD - because format shifting was considered a copyright violation).
Thanks to the AU-US "Free" Trade Agreement, we now also have those nice anti-circumvention DMCA-style laws as well.
The laws against child porn in the US are defended on the ground that the act of making the child porn itself is illegal.
This logic doesn't even stand up to superficial examination, however. It's trivial to think of examples of "making child pornography" without breaking any laws or harming anyone - two "children" videotaping themselves having sex, or a videotape of consexual sex made in a country with a lower age of consent, or that weird conflcit between age of consent and age of majority, where's its legal to consent to sex, but illegal to consent to that sex being videotaped.
This is without even getting into "porn" that doesn't involve video and intercourse...
I realise that whenever someone hears the words "child pornography" they rarely think of anything other than some sicko raping babies, but it's important to remember that there's a substantial chunk of the population that are - legally speaking - "children", but very sexually active.
The way zune can play ITMS songs? The way ipods can play playsforsure content? I think the issue is not as simple as you think.
It is. The difference is that I'm talking about general concepts and you're moving the goalposts and picking out specific implementations to try and construct a semantic argument.
DRM scheme 1 vs DRM scheme 2 is a different discussion to DRM vs non-DRM. The former is a matter of whether or not a player supports a particular DRM _scheme_, the latter is about whether it supports DRM *at all*.
Not if it's done through legislation.
Yes, even if its done through legislation. DRM is an attribute of the media. The player can support dozens of different DRM schemes and they're all completely irrelevant if the media doesn't activate any of them. If you legislate against DRM-capable players, all you do is create yet another level of incompatibility and confusion in the market, forcing consuemrs to go out and buy more hardware and hardware manufacturers to change their products (again). Plus they have to deal with all the other markets that haven't enacted such legislation. If you legislate against DRM-infected media, no-one except the content producers has to do anything, or bear any costs.
I'm not talking about the DRM in itunes/wmp that prevents you copying media content, but the DRM in the OS that prevents you from copying the OS itself.
Which would be what, exactly ?
DRM is in both the media & the player. Pointing at one or the other is stupid.
No, it's not. DRM-encumbered media cannot play on a DRM-incapable player. A DRM-capable player, however, can play both DRM-encumbered and regular media.
DRM is an attribute of the media. Take that away and the whole issue is moot. Take the DRM capabilities out of the player, however, and the customer will simply get another player, because it is a commodity and it is the media they are really interested in. Attacking DRM via the players is like trying to kill the Hydra by chopping off its heads.
We have DRM because the companies making the product consumers want - the media - are able to dictate terms to the companies making the commodities - the players. Take out the reason for DRM-capable players and the companies selling the players will quickly drop it from their product lines, as it causes them nothing except increased costs.
What if I owned a PSP and wanted to play the New Super Mario Bros. on it? Would I be justified in warezing the rom and hacking my PSP's firmware to play it, so long as I sent my $30 check to Nintendo Norway?
Yes.
Could I request Microsoft release NT3.5 for my super nintendo so that it's cross platform?
Of course. Microsoft, however, would be under no obligation to provide it. Such compulsion would be a completely different situation.