This mp3 debate, the DeCSS debate, and software piracy, all of it, is about one question:
How is it that something that is infinitely, perfectly reproducible yet intangible has any value?
Of course I think software authors deserve to earn a living. I am not convinced, however, that if I duplicate an album I wasn't going to buy anyway, dollar bills magically disappear from some artist's wallet. It's one of those "if everyone does it..." scenarios, but not everyone does do it.
There really needs to be a midpoint where we can agree on what kind of value to place on IP. This is an issue that affects much more than just software and music, and a lot of people make their livings off of it.
This doesn't really matter, since the defense of Napster now is relying upon the idea that non-commercial sharing of copyrighted material is legal according to the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992. If they really believe that that is the interpretation of this law, then they don't need any other defense.
I see everyone mentioning how Windows reuses code more than Unix systems, due to its DLLs. You'd think that by now they have code to handle buffers correctly and they'd reuse that in Outlook...
I would go to see just a film about Wolverine's history, something that goes through the whole Weapon X series. There were hints of it in X-Men, but not quite enough.
The only reason I'm still undecided about the RBL is because I'm not sure how this can be used to enforce ISP accountability for things. Vixie wants ISPs to be accountable for spam. Let's say that a court accepts this. How far then, does this accountability go for, say, obscene content? Copyrighted works? Should an ISP just aggressively take down everything that's questionable?
When you think about it, what has ever really changed? We still use the same vehicles we've used for a long time. We still use telephones. Far too many people still use faxes.
And stuff that should have changed a long time ago hasn't. I live in America where people are pissing and moaning about gas prices. Where are the electric or hydrogen powered cars?
You'll get so much more attention if you talk about cyber-this and cyber-that.
When was the last time you heard someone lauded by peers for designing an interface? In the Unix community (I use "community" loosely), systems programming seems to be the popular route. I don't know how long that will last. Maybe Rob Pike is right.
For many people, yes, poking around is the end. But what about the people who can't afford a Sparc or Alpha but want to learn? Many of them end up getting jobs because they were able to familiarize themselves with a Unix-like OS in their spare time for very little or no money.
Sure, not everyone is submitting patches, but they have that option. I think what the original poster meant was that Linux came about because of a desire to learn; it was not intended to be an OS for grandma. That doesn't mean it can't be, though.
I think this just gets back to something that Mac/Windows users can never seem to comprehend: Unix is very minimalist; it doesn't hold your hand. It gives you the ability to do things and you are expected to be able to do them yourself.
Interface is quite important when you are in the business of selling software. You reduce your number of potential customers if people are confused by your product. Linus, the kernel developers and the FSF aren't selling anything.
The OP has no misconception at all. It's that too many people are shouting that Linux is some kind of cure-all OS. It's not.
That's the status quo now, but the media companies already have their eyes set on a pay per play future. Not to mention not being able to transfer a CD to a bunch of mp3 files. We all know this is fair use, but the RIAA fights it anyway.
heh, heh, you've given me more credit than I deserve. It wasn't intentional, but I do believe that the napster users should be facing legal threats rather than the company. As has been pointed out on slashdot before though, how can they prosecute the users? If they sue you, you can just go out and buy the CD. Well, one counterpoint to this is that if they ask you in court when you bought the CD, it's perjury if you tell them you owned it before you downloaded the music. In general I support blaming individuals for their own dumb choices, but realistically, sometimes you have to put pressure on those who provide the means.
Be careful when replying to these statements by claiming that Seagrams has taken lives, jobs, etc. I realize that this man is misguided. However, blaming the company for the poor choices of individuals is wrong, no matter how immoral the intentions of the company. No one ever put a gun to anyone's head and told him/her to drink some booze, smoke a cigarette, drop some acid, etc. Just about any object can be used as a means for crime and/or destruction. Are we going to blame the people who make all these otherwise useful objects? Example: should we just not have ISPs because they make it possible to relay spam or view porn? You have to be careful about claiming who should take responsibility for things.
Has anyone else noticed that Metallica's success seems to have blurred their memories of once being fans of music? Open up the booklet that comes with Garage, Inc. and you'll see it printed that they themselves pirated music:
But [James] was astounded by the size and specialist depth of Ulrich's collection..."I would stay over at his place for days at a time, making tapes of his records and sleeping on the carpet."
Let's face it, they wrote a pathetically weak program, and they deserved to have it reverse engineered.
I don't agree with the reasoning that breaking something open is justified if it is easy to do so. If people are going to reverse engineer things, it needs to be done because they believe the software is infringing on someone's rights.
From a programming point of view, sure, it deserves to be broken if all the crypto is just a bunch of CRC routines. What will be more plausible in court, however, is explaining the political necessity of reverse engineering as the reason for doing it.
It does have kind of strange implications though. Can we just write shoddy code from now on and tell our bosses, "It doesn't matter, our lawyers will handle it when it inevitably gets broken."
Yours is a bogus argument. My argument in the other direction is exactly what I hear on the news all the time. Why, then, are there perfectly fine kids out there who have been exposed to these things yet are still productive members of society?
They must be picking up their dysfunctionality from somwhere before they get exposed to these things. Where are they getting it from?
The article mentioned that DVD audio was adversely impacted by deCSS, which is so typical.
Here's my question: what advantage to consumers, aside from larger capacity, is DVD audio going to offer over a CD? Isn't it all just PCM data anyway? I don't understand why the hell anyone is going to get excited about buying an audio disc (that's encrypted, no less) just because it has a larger capacity. The quality isn't going to improve any, from what I understand.
Slashdot Mirror
--
How is it that something that is infinitely, perfectly reproducible yet intangible has any value?
Of course I think software authors deserve to earn a living. I am not convinced, however, that if I duplicate an album I wasn't going to buy anyway, dollar bills magically disappear from some artist's wallet. It's one of those "if everyone does it..." scenarios, but not everyone does do it.
There really needs to be a midpoint where we can agree on what kind of value to place on IP. This is an issue that affects much more than just software and music, and a lot of people make their livings off of it.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
When you think about it, what has ever really changed? We still use the same vehicles we've used for a long time. We still use telephones. Far too many people still use faxes.
And stuff that should have changed a long time ago hasn't. I live in America where people are pissing and moaning about gas prices. Where are the electric or hydrogen powered cars?
You'll get so much more attention if you talk about cyber-this and cyber-that.
--
--
Sure, not everyone is submitting patches, but they have that option. I think what the original poster meant was that Linux came about because of a desire to learn; it was not intended to be an OS for grandma. That doesn't mean it can't be, though.
I think this just gets back to something that Mac/Windows users can never seem to comprehend: Unix is very minimalist; it doesn't hold your hand. It gives you the ability to do things and you are expected to be able to do them yourself.
Interface is quite important when you are in the business of selling software. You reduce your number of potential customers if people are confused by your product. Linus, the kernel developers and the FSF aren't selling anything.
The OP has no misconception at all. It's that too many people are shouting that Linux is some kind of cure-all OS. It's not.
--
--
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
It's lather, rinse, repeat.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
But [James] was astounded by the size and specialist depth of Ulrich's collection..."I would stay over at his place for days at a time, making tapes of his records and sleeping on the carpet."
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
So don't play.
"Sony's game won't let me use a name I like!"
So don't play.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Not if he likes those members...
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
I don't agree with the reasoning that breaking something open is justified if it is easy to do so. If people are going to reverse engineer things, it needs to be done because they believe the software is infringing on someone's rights.
From a programming point of view, sure, it deserves to be broken if all the crypto is just a bunch of CRC routines. What will be more plausible in court, however, is explaining the political necessity of reverse engineering as the reason for doing it.
It does have kind of strange implications though. Can we just write shoddy code from now on and tell our bosses, "It doesn't matter, our lawyers will handle it when it inevitably gets broken."
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
They must be picking up their dysfunctionality from somwhere before they get exposed to these things. Where are they getting it from?
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.
Here's my question: what advantage to consumers, aside from larger capacity, is DVD audio going to offer over a CD? Isn't it all just PCM data anyway? I don't understand why the hell anyone is going to get excited about buying an audio disc (that's encrypted, no less) just because it has a larger capacity. The quality isn't going to improve any, from what I understand.
Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.