Well, yea, it can be done now... hell, I can do it... but it's time consuming and difficult. This makes it automatic. And once it's done... well, it's difficult to reverse. And I'm not talking about people recording the shows using this hack indefinitely... I mean, once they're on your hard drive, or burned to CDR, they're pretty much YOURS. And once they're on the Internet, it's hard to get them off of it.
Besides, yea there's TV rippers out there, but that scene doesn't compare to the movie rip scene... especially because why go through all the trouble of downloading an episode of the Simpsons when it's gonna be on 6pm every day anyway? Perhaps this will increase the speed of deployment and availabilty of TV shows to the point where it becomes a worthwhile scene to be involved in.
And, unlike with movies, syndication will remain popular. It's less trouble to watch the Simpsons at 6pm than it is to go find it on your computer and choose a random episode. Most likely, people will watch the Simpsons more when it's NOT supposed to be on, which is the same as time-shifting, which is legal. Of course, the entertainment industry does lose a lot of control here, hence there's probaby some reason they'll create (if it doesn't already exist) to make this horribly illegal (you know, like 15 years in jail for every episode you "pirate")...
and one step farther back for the entertainment industry.
Over the past... I dunno, say 20 years... the media and entertainment industry has been hyping up and trying to plan the deployment of their ultimate wet dream: on-demand pay per view for everyone and everything. This would mean total control over viewership, programming, and revenue for the entertainment industry... the whole thing about choosing stuff to watch when you want to watch it is just a red herring, cause ultimately you won't have everything at your fingertips at once even if they could provide it that way. It'll just be what they want you to see. Hence, just like today, you might have a choice of when you want to start watching a movie (except you'll have a greater flexibility in choosing the start time), but just like today there will be days when all that's available to watch is "Battlefield Earth" if they so choose to do that. (That's a great scheme, to play one movie all day on a PPV channel no matter how bad it is) That's obviously a bit extreme of a scenario, but I assure you their intentions are not much different from that.
On the other hand, the public does not want pay per view, and on-demand service is not enough compensation to deal with such a nuisance. Furthermore, people want access to EVERYTHING at any time... hey, I wanna watch that old episode of "Growing Pains", get it NOW. I'm in the mood to watch "The Godfather", so bring it to me. Or, perhaps I want to see the Redskins win the Super Bowl in '87 again. And I want to see the best commercials from 1993, just to be nostalgic. This is what people want... and they want it in decent quality, and they don't want to pay a lot to do it. Unfortunately, this would kill broadcast television, the home video market, and the video rental market all at once - hypothetically, anyway. Just like Napster is killing radio, CD sales, and music stores - it's not really, but some people think the potential is there.
This just hastens the massacre on the way. TiVO itself is bad enough... but now people will be distributing those episodes of "Seinfeld" on the Internet for everyone to watch at anytime. It won't make a squat of difference at the moment on ratings, but once people have a taste of something like that, they continue down that path with or without the help of the entertainment industry. So, it's up to them to either provide services that would improve on what's available in the underground, or to die a slow miserable death trying to fight the oncoming rush of things bigger and better.
Of course, I don't support the idea of media being FREE, but then again, if there's not a convenient and practical way to pay for it, I'm not gonna deny myself the enjoyment of what's out there...
Perhaps it's fascist administration, but you know what? This is important in a lot of contexts regardless.
First of all, I believe that, the story as told, is just plain unfair, possibly illegal, and certainly ridiculous. Assuming that no laws were broken or that the student code of conduct had not been breached, any action taken in this story by any officials is simply cruel and oppressive. The way the story seems, it looks as if the new administration did not want to tolerate him anymore and simply pounced on him for being a nuisance. The expulsion is an unnecessary and unjustifiable measure, assuming that he did not post anything himself that violated the code of conduct.
Applying a copyright to the content adds to the state of oppression - while the university may have a right to do that, the ultimate purpose is to limit free speech and not to protect their intellectual property. In spirit, it's not theirs... it's only theirs technically for being on school property. Would you support your employer claiming copyright on a novel you wrote because it was written in a notebook belonging to the company?
Also, in this particular situation, the webmaster should not be directly held accountable for the actions of anonymous posters outside the context of his position. In my case, I worked on campus at a computing site, was late to work one day, and got fired as a result. Should the school have reprimanded me any further? This guy was in charge of the website, and any duty that he has in maintaining the website bears solely on the position he holds... simply put, if they don't like the website, they can dismiss it, but they can't apply the code of conduct to him if he did not violate it himself. And I doubt that the code of conduct includes a statement on "not eradicating all offensive anonymous speech by others" punishable by expulsion. Anything beyond the closing of the site and the copyright claim is simply retaliation. Beyond that, the university, having owned the server, is the real reponsible party for what was contained on the site... if they can claim copyright, they should face any lawsuits pending. They are responsible for their own property. I'm not saying they should be sued, but they should pay more attention to the content kept on their servers, or simply disallow anonymous posting / keep records of IPs / whatever.
Finally, it seems that this is either a hoax or not the full story. It just seems very improbable and not very well explained or backed up. So, let this be a lesson to all the people screaming about this right now... it may or may not be true. I know I'm not getting too worked up about it... but given even a hypothetical situation resembling this one, there is definitely a need for discussion.
By the way, you act as if you know the guy and don't like him. If this is the case, you seem like the kind of person I hated to death in college. Sorry for the cheap shot, but your post is simply flamebait and a troll - I'm just not sure which one it is more of.
I was taught when I was three years old not to pull a floppy disk out of the drive while it's writing. You, sir, apparently did not learn this most crucial-of-crucial tenets of the computing world.
I mean, just cause Linux CAN do it doesn't mean that it's a great feature. If it took more than half an hour to make such a feature, I can guarantee you it was a waste of time spent, since most computer users are taught not to touch the disk drive while it's writing. And I have no need to pull out disks while the light is on.
It doesn't represent "quality", it represents "code bloat". And that's MS's main game (extra features), one that no company has beat them on yet.
Not that Linux is that bad of an OS for a dinky webserver. Better than Windows ME and cheaper than NT. I would just hate to play games on it, though...
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
Now wait a second. I know MS is pretty much jacking up their prices ludicrously over the next few years... but maybe that reflects the worth of their product. Why must people have their operating systems for free? This is like saying people must have free paper since they can go into their backyard and chop down a tree themselves... it's not quite logical. Yes, there's a free alternative OS (actually, quite a few free alternatives) and free OSes aren't in danger of disappearing soon. But MS has put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their product... and even if it wasn't that much effort to make, they can still charge whatever they want for it, and if consumers are fed up, they have options still. That is why Linux and the Open Source movement are both successful in their moral goals. But in the meantime, I think MS is OBLIGED to charge for their OS, and charge whatever makes them the most money. Hell, you can set up a graph in Excel that tells you how much to price any kind of service or product at, it's taught in basic Microeconomics classes. If all that's too unethical for you, then you're just wacky...
No, wait a second. MS makes Excel too. Theoretically, they could have set up Excel such that economic graphs always show higher prices so that they overcharge... yea, that's it... and they know where the UFOs are kept too...
Californians also want it out of their sight, and they want it to be totally enviroment friendly - aka, no cutting down trees or blocking a mountain lion's cave to put up a transmission tower. And if they could demand such a thing, they would want each new power line to be blessed with good karma.
I think the power crisis is the reality check they need, before something truly dangerous happens out there. It's a good thing that they get motivated to act by minor inconveniences like rolling blackouts. (Although I do have to say that no blackout has affected my life, but they all have served to annoy the crap out of me, so I can't diss CA too much on that one)
In a nutshell... and I leave it up to anyone who's up to the task to find evidence of what I'm saying, I'm just relying on my personal memory here... the general public in America, and even the world, tends not to feel so strongly about freedom of information. It's just not a priority in their lives, and they don't involve themselves in the debate... and when it comes to computers, people want something that will improve the quality of their lives, even if the underlying product comes from a source that is morally disjoint with their values. This is why there are organized boycotts in this country... because most people need to make a serious effort to punish companies by denying them sales or support. It's a world-wide thing... kind of like how people in China don't destroy their own government because of the human rights violations in their country, they're just happy until they reach their breaking point of tolerance and patience.
RMS doesn't have any tolerance or patience. He's just, well, OUT THERE when it comes to freedom of information. History will either judge him as a pioneer (if society eventually turns to freedom of information and progress as being highly important) or perhaps as a kook (if he does all this grandstanding and we decide that information cannot be free, ever, as a society). I'm not taking any sides here, but I know that RMS is extreme in his actions and words. Furthermore, I would assume someone of his particular interests, lifestyle, and occupation would not be abreast of the current mindset of general society, in a nerdy sort of way... and my backup for this is that whole discussion about "Is it okay to make an open source game with non-open-source tools?" where he seemed not to know what a Playstation was (or something like that... if I'm wrong, please clarify for me). I'm assuming that he's not in touch with society - good for his personal causes, I assume, but bad for taking everything he says to heart.
It's somewhat akin to the process of creating the atom bomb... you can't just do that in a laboratory and then expect society not to be affected or changed by it. Freedom of information in a lot of ways is like an atom bomb against our capitalist culture... and I'm not sure whether it's good or bad for the world. All I know is, RMS is pushing very hard for it... and the general public does not feel that strongly, as I said above. I suppose it's a coup for him if he gets the general public thinking like him, but like I said above, if he comes across on his beliefs too strongly... he'll look like a madman. And even for an educated, open minded person such as myself (not to pat myself too much on the back), at times I find him to seem like a madman, even if I agree with him on some things or not.
Yea, I know all you guys are not happy about Mundie's mouth-spoutings, and I don't blame you if you disagree with him and want to argue against his points in a public forum. I think that would make a great debate.
Just don't let RMS do it. For the love of god.
I have to say, RMS does NOT share a mindset with most people, and he fights vigorously for what he believes in. While you might consider him inspiring, he's the last person you want to do a public debate to argue your opinions. Because he doesn't necessarily share your opinions... I find that his opinions are very extreme, in some cases off the deep end (this is a guy who would be Amish if someone held a patent on electricity). Some of his ideas are good, and some of his work has been extraordinary... but if you let him argue for your opinions, I guarantee he is going to make all of you look like extreme free software orthodox fundamentalists.
Simply put, his arguments are not balanced or flexible enough to safely engage in a debate with Microsoft in a public forum - he would lose solely on the basis that normal people would get freaked out at the intensity and seriousness of his thoughts and actions. I mean, after all, this guy needs his speech encoded in OGG cause he hates MP3s... how does he expect normal people to relate to him on any level if he wants them to discard MP3s as well? He may be a very accomplished man in his own belief system, but most people don't think on his level.
If you really want a good debate, we should find someone in the business world... someone in the role of a potential MS customer... who strongly advocates Linux, can argue and speak in public pretty well, and who doesn't sound like a zealot... and get them to argue our point. I think someone with that point of view would have the best ammunition and reasoning to counteract the FUD coming out of MS (since MS-FUD is always geared toward businesses, sort of like "You won't get fired for choosing IBM").
Litigation is a substantial enough threat to make very large companies change their entire course of direction to avoid anyone from following through on the threat of a lawsuit. Furthermore, companies are much more willing to settle cases on minimally favorable terms for their business just to get the lawsuit out of court: the threat of a decision going toward the undesired outcome is usually considered too great to have the luxury of avoiding a settlement.
Basically, two companies can grandstand all they want and claim that they are right in front of a judge, but most companies don't want to risk a court case and want to minimize legal fees... this is why the RIAA sucks. They are mind-bogglingly rich and can afford whatever legal onlslaught is necessary to get another organization to give up the ghost. Most small organizations can't afford a prolonged legal battle and can't stay in business if a crippling injunction is issued... the RIAA has the legal power and the money to attack both of these ways. And it's not as if a small company can just hire a cheap lawyer to run in and give a quick argument... they'll almost certainly lose the case that way. This is one way how the RIAA manipulates the legal system to get whatever they want.
Don't forget: if a company believes that they are right and decides to endure endless litigation to prove their point at whatever cost, the shareholders will be infuriated, and then THEY can sue the company for mismanagement. The record labels, on the other hand, will never sue the RIAA for mismanagement... they gladly feed them the money they need to bully around whomever they want. It's a puppet organization. Plus, only money matters to the record labels... the music is of no concern. Only the artists and the fans have anything to say about music at all, yet the RIAA has no interest in representing their needs at all. I think that last point is what Congress needs to see in the near future so that they can tweak the legal system to avoid these kind of dirty battles.
First of all, if IE is really a superior product to Netscape, and AOL is a fine ISP for most people's need, and if you have an option to use something else in either category if you so choose, then I don't see this as being anti-competitive... it's benefitting normal consumers. This is in the same vein as MS's consumer OS virtual monopoly being a lot more beneficial to consumers than having 10 different popular OSes with lesser features - as long as you can choose to use another operating system at any time. (When motherboard chipsets and hard drives begin to support only Windows and AOL, then I'll worry)
Second, Netscape is not dead, as long as AOL doesn't kill them off. Of course, this is virtually what's happening here, but neither AOL nor Netscape itself (pre-merger) showed any serious committment to providing consumers with something better... they were sitting on top of their own monopoly on the browser scene. Even now, Netscape and Operal are the popular options for non-Microsoft (or Apple) operating systems. They're not eliminating competition, they're simply taking the fight a step further. There's still a market for the other browsers, though.
Third, none of you people use Windows or AOL anyway. This helps all the people that use AOL and Windows. And it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't. This does not affect the Linux crowd at all.
Finally, this saves me a step in reformatting... now I don't have to go in the junk mail pile for an AOL cd anymore. And it saves trees and plastic.
Then again, I've already been assimilated, so it's too late for me.
Computers are only a small part of the equation here. The main purpose of a home PC is to provide convenience, productivity, and education. For adults, that is. Nothing on a computer is geared for a regular little kid. Yet over the last... oh, 6 years, there's been a crapload of 7-13 year olds getting online permanently, chatting over their instant messages, checking their email, and playing online games. I know some of you think that this is a good thing, but here's what I think... it SCARES me to think that there's a 9 year old out there, boy OR girl, who plays Diablo II for more than an hour a day and is pretty good at it. It's just shocking on so many levels... cause some 20 year olds can barely get the hang of it all.
However, it's just one more thing that's thrown onto little kids in order to get them in the rat race sooner. High school and even grammar school are focusing less on education and more on achievement... some states with their mandatory standardized tests for high school graduation, the rise of magnet schools, the fierce competition for college admissions, etc. Basically, the more you know, and the younger you know it, the more amazing you are... and the pressure is on kids to excel tremendously in piddly-widdly knowledge categories at the expense of everything else that's healthy or vital to them. It's a nationwide spelling bee culture... how the hell does some seven year old kid who can spell "chaturnaliontics" get on the news? That's almost sad to me. Maybe I would prefer to watch a news program where kids run around outside and play dodgeball (whoops, can't do that either... don't even get me started).
So all these kids are being pushed around to achieve, achieve, achieve. And for what? So they can become our future doctors, consultants, mathematicians, programmers, and the like... but not managers! Hahah, joke's on them, cause in the future, the upper management of every company will still be the CEO's frat buddies, and that will never change. For the rest of their lives, the achieving kids will be working for other people... that is, if the never stop and think about it. After slaving away in kindergarten, grammar school, middle school, high school, college, internships, and in the workforce... well, the business world actually wants them to do nothing else ever, since that's the best thing for the bottom line. Basically, it's a road to burnout... or suicide, which usually comes in the early teens when kids can't handle their shit and they're too stupid to think about the long term picture and how they can do better for themselves. Hey, if I were 14, and I got a C on a test, and everyone would be disappointed cause that would mean I can't go to Harvard... I'd kill myself too.
Computers are just one more thing to throw at kids to force them to achieve. And then, even worse, it's another electronic babysitter. What's more dangerous to you... running around the local park every day and one day falling off the monkey bars and knocking out a few teeth, or sitting on a computer for your entire childhood talking to w@r3Z d00dz and pedophiles? This is only exacerbated by the lack of kids' champions in politics today... increasingly, no one gives a damn about kids cause kids don't vote at least for another 30 years. Kids have nothing to do anymore because all of their fun stuff has been getting phased out in the interests of "childrens safety". We generally can't afford to have a friendly police officer monitor the local playground to keep the crack dealers out, but we can afford metal detectors for grammar schools. We can also crack down hard on some kid who brings a nail clipper to school by accident, saying it's a deadly weapon.
Oh, and it's not only the smart kids who are bored. EVERYONE is bored. The smart kids just find intelligent things to do. The dumb kids get into drugs. If smoking pot were an academic achievement, we'd have a nation of geniuses.
... that this happens when mp3.com's stock price is way down and Napster's dying off?
It could be a good business venture for them. There's a lot of original artists on there, and it's basically a seeding pool for new artists. And it's got brand name recognition, too. Maybe they have some good plans for it.
Or maybe it's a conspiracy to take away our dear MP3 files from us and force us to rent our N'Sync from big fatcat record label honchos a week at a time. Oh well... anyone up for some non-copyrighted Mozart?
You're right. But consider this: people buying PCs now will pay $1800 for a PC if that's what it's sold for. They will pay $1500 as well, but if they can't find a $1500 computer that they want, they'll pay $1800.
The PC market recently devoured itself, so I think the big guys can safely price computers a little higher and not worry about losing sales to cheap competitors, most of which have died off in the past two years. It sounds like collusion, but in reality, none of these manufacturers can afford to be loss leaders for much longer - market share and service contracts previously buoyed up these companies' stocks, which made it look like they were all ridiculously successful. Now they're all in the tank, and it's time to charge more for their products. Now that I'm moving on from being a poor college student and going into the real world making real money, $1800 for a solid computer doesn't sound so bad. Except I still know how to build em much cheaper, so more power to me.
Yea, there's lots of stuff in economics and accounting that would help these companies set their prices right, but let's look at it this way... they've been ignoring economics for years anyway. For all the computations that PCs can do, they still haven't calculated how to make solid profits and generate stable economic figures.
Just like Yahoo! should now start charging modestly for all the news, e-mail, games, clubs, etc. they provide, since I'd rather pay for them than see them go away... but that's offtopic.
I mean, why charge ANYONE a lower price? They should just sell all their computers to everyone at the highest price they're willing to sell at.
No, this is not a troll.
These are businesses that survive on profit margins... and who sell to a lot of middle-class individuals and corporations. If they just keep the prices at the highest level, people are gonna buy from these companies ANYWAY... people are not knowledgeable enough about computers, and it's too much of an inconvenience, for people to be able to tell when they're paying a bit more than they should. While this sounds kind of slimy from a consumer point of view, computers are rather useful machines, and I always thought that the benefits of a factory-made computer justified the higher prices.
This won't affect hobbyists. They never buy from these companies anyway. And it doesn't affect poor people, either... they can't afford such a computer anyway (I know, that's not the way things should be, but let's face it, poor people should be getting a PeoplePC or an eMachine or something like that... and that's only if they're able to eat first. Otherwise, a computer is a convenient luxury... like an in-house washer and dryer set).
Maybe if these companies set higher prices, and they prove people are willing to buy at those higher prices, the computer manufacturers don't have to keep dipping prices below profit levels, and you won't see the carnage that existed in the industry over the past few years. Yea, it's not the best short term solution for the consumer, but it's better long-term for the consumer and the industry. Besides, it's a wise investment for any consumer, and perhaps people will be more inclined to price shop and become knowledgeable about the machines themselves if they have to think about the price more... getting a whole computer for $300 after the MSN rebate doesn't require a whole lot of thinking for most people, after all...
Wow, this is textbook trolling / karma whoring. But whatever... I like the challenge.
What I want to know is, why does free software have enemies in Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc.? I mean, granted, what those companies do as businesses are against the tenets of free software, and yes they do have products that directly compete with free software products, but how does that make them the enemies?
I mean, can't business and freedom of information co-exist in the world? Are these companies doing anything to stop the thoughts and expressions of free software advocates? Sony didn't kill Indrema, lack of funding did. Putting aside Indrema's death as a business, no one has been prevented at this point from introducing a free software based game console system. Anyone can do it if they want to, and if they have the proper resources at hand.
The essay I'm replying to does not state how the success of game consoles by these companies equates to "a crushing blow against freedom". It's simply a business. I don't think their business infringes on anyone's freedom. No one is suppressed because Sony sells a lot of games. I just want to state this not just as a reply to the essay, but to warn the rest of the free software world that declaring war on Microsoft and the rest of the evil empire type companies is illogical. Microsoft doesn't threaten free software... it's lack of interest that threatens free software... it's indifference... it's stupidity that is the threat. If people know about free software, the battle has been won... people will have had a choice, seen the choice, and someone will have expressed themselves to the world against the tyranny of anyone whose best interests is to stop them. Microsoft doesn't attack free software projects as operations and try to stop them from ever appearing... it simply tries to sell its own product as the better alternative, no matter how much spin they put on the situation. So why try to fight them? They're never going to kill free software, they never have tried and they aren't currently trying as well.
Therefore, if you're going to be an advocate, stop picking fights with people you disagree with and start presenting a better argument. That's how you win debates. Not with bitchslapping.
The Bigger problem...
on
The DNA Bomb
·
· Score: 3
is exactly what you state. Things don't work as expected. We'll be trying to cure baldness and we may inadvertently sterilize the whole human race. Most discoveries are made by accident. The good AND the bad ones...
I believe any works produced by the government are exempt from copyright, patent, trademark, etc...
While I know that this law was submitted by a group of private citizens, once it enters law, it was drafted (somehow) by legislators into an official document, making it a government work, making it non-copyrightable in that form. Otherwise, we have two catastrophes of justice here:
1. Groups who compose laws then have unreasonable control over the distribution of the information contained in the law.
2. Private citizens are then directly submitting laws for approval to legislature, in the absence of elected officials whose job it is to compose our laws.
This a "what SHOULD happen" case, not "what DOES happen" case. But certainly, the Supreme Court would not uphold this kind of copyright - after all, law is supposed to be public record, and I can't see the government getting trapped into this kind of mess. After all, then shouldn't we be paying royalties to the RIAA and the MPAA out of taxes for every reference to the DMCA?!?!
I suppose that operating systems are a tough business to be in anyway... that is, suppose a lot of the reasons why Windows is an "entrenched" OS (application support, hardware support, brand name recognition, ease-of-use, existing user base, etc.) were nullified by Monday morning at 10am. I seriously doubt that Linux, BeOS, and OS/2 would fill in all the gaps and/or do a better job for most users anytime within the next 2 years. But even more important, I seriously doubt that someone on Monday morning, deciding to seize the opportunity, could make an OS from scratch within the next two years that could compete among the remaining OSes. Considering that a very large user base, several times the size of the MS Windows core development team, has spent the better part of a decade building a better OS from scratch in an open and collaborative process, yet only 5% of the market uses it and most admit that it's not ready for most of the 85% majority OS users, that says something about the sheer difficulty of living up to the expectations set by Windows.
Before anyone adds that MS is anticompetitive and THAT'S why they're entrenched... well, Linux is free, it's been around awhile, and the business world knows about it. With all respect to the concept that people don't like change... I think the expense of Windows licenses would be enough motivation for the majority of the business world and computer manufacturers to jump ship by now. But Windows apparently has enough advantages to keep a lot of people in its tent.
The fact is, Windows, Linux, and now even OS X, constantly set a very high bar for what's expected in an operating system. OS X took YEARS to come around, and GNU/Linux is a very complex system for providing a very complete library of tools and applications that can be bundled as a package (and unbundled, as well). I marvel at innovation that's so speedy and prolific like this.
Microsoft plays unfair? Probably. But in this "business", I doubt that fair could ever win anymore. I think that at some point we have to settle for "unfair" but "pretty damn good". Just like with Intel... they might have a questionable lock on their market (well, AMD has been creeping in on them for a number of years and they're permanently in the game now), but can you really look down on a company that has kept up with Moore's Law for over two decades? If we had 10 processor vendors competing harshly today to sell 33mhz processors, would that be better for the consumer?
The article starts with a very good, yet oft-stated point about mp3s and Napster. That is, the only reason why the RIAA could possibly be upset at the habits of mp3 users is that they're obsessed with gouging us as much as possible... mp3 files don't reduce album sales, they simply help people avoid bad purchases (and sometimes help them make better ones too).
Then he rants about MS and their OS pricing policy - actually, he's not happy with ANY company that sells an OS, he feels they're all too expensive. He states that he does pay for them, but only once and with the intent of using them multiple times. This is apples to oranges when compared to the first story... the first story should have been something about wanting the right to buy a CD and make copies to keep in the car, at work, at home, backup, etc...
Then the third point has nothing to do with the other two, and philosophically disagrees with the first two: WPA has the indirect effect of removing the priviledges that he expects in the first two stories!
Perhaps the author should try posting three separate, complete, philisophically agreeing essays about each topic rather than provide us a grab bag of snippets. I would be more interested in seeing that.
Ah, if we could only moderate stories posted to the front page... there's some good stories on the main page that need some bumping up today.
Douglas Adams had an uncanny sense of wit... one that most authors would give a lung and a kidney just to have for one novel. Although the "Dirk Gently" books never quite caught on with me, I do own all 5 Hitchhiker's Trilogy books (yes, an increasingly inappropriately named trilogy... and yes, the leather bound version) and they rank among the top 10 books/authors I have ever read. There is something quite upsetting about someone dying this young, someone with so much creative force left in him, but his contributions to our souls and to all of pop culture will exist forever and ever. We will never lose them.
The feeling is not entirely unlike Arthur Dent's feeling after losing Fenchurch in a hyperspace jump, though. This is beyond unexpected, and there's a feeling of helplessness as well. Plus, we all want to see that movie made the RIGHT way, and eventually I want to be carrying around my "Don't Panic" PDA. Palm might generate great business by selling one of its' wireless access models with those words on the cover, as a tribute.
I might add that I have two favorite authors, and I expected one of them to be dead any time soon now... except the other died extremely unexpectedly, and the other isn't getting any younger. So, someone, please, call and find out how Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is feeling today...
Well, I don't think that the actual database is copyrighted... no, you can't do that, it is free to copy...
However, the algorithm for determining a CD's unique ID to store in the database (as well as look up entries in the database) is patented. I don't know how Roxio could possibly be liable for using an alternate data source and using a patented algorithm to do lookups - when previously they were using a non-copyrighted data source with the same algorithm, and they were in compliance with the law.
I do think that the algorithm should be patented, though. I just don't like the company that holds the patent. Plus, it's a de-facto standard now, so there should be some sort of compulsory licensing solution for it. Gracenote will still make money hand over fist that way, but they can't squash competition with it...
(Sorry... with all these X-Men references, I had to bring Donatello, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Raphael into it. Don't forget Splinter. Or Bebop and Rocksteady. Or any of the other mutants in the comics/cartoon.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yea, it can be done now... hell, I can do it... but it's time consuming and difficult. This makes it automatic. And once it's done... well, it's difficult to reverse. And I'm not talking about people recording the shows using this hack indefinitely... I mean, once they're on your hard drive, or burned to CDR, they're pretty much YOURS. And once they're on the Internet, it's hard to get them off of it.
Besides, yea there's TV rippers out there, but that scene doesn't compare to the movie rip scene... especially because why go through all the trouble of downloading an episode of the Simpsons when it's gonna be on 6pm every day anyway? Perhaps this will increase the speed of deployment and availabilty of TV shows to the point where it becomes a worthwhile scene to be involved in.
And, unlike with movies, syndication will remain popular. It's less trouble to watch the Simpsons at 6pm than it is to go find it on your computer and choose a random episode. Most likely, people will watch the Simpsons more when it's NOT supposed to be on, which is the same as time-shifting, which is legal. Of course, the entertainment industry does lose a lot of control here, hence there's probaby some reason they'll create (if it doesn't already exist) to make this horribly illegal (you know, like 15 years in jail for every episode you "pirate")...
and one step farther back for the entertainment industry.
Over the past... I dunno, say 20 years... the media and entertainment industry has been hyping up and trying to plan the deployment of their ultimate wet dream: on-demand pay per view for everyone and everything. This would mean total control over viewership, programming, and revenue for the entertainment industry... the whole thing about choosing stuff to watch when you want to watch it is just a red herring, cause ultimately you won't have everything at your fingertips at once even if they could provide it that way. It'll just be what they want you to see. Hence, just like today, you might have a choice of when you want to start watching a movie (except you'll have a greater flexibility in choosing the start time), but just like today there will be days when all that's available to watch is "Battlefield Earth" if they so choose to do that. (That's a great scheme, to play one movie all day on a PPV channel no matter how bad it is) That's obviously a bit extreme of a scenario, but I assure you their intentions are not much different from that.
On the other hand, the public does not want pay per view, and on-demand service is not enough compensation to deal with such a nuisance. Furthermore, people want access to EVERYTHING at any time... hey, I wanna watch that old episode of "Growing Pains", get it NOW. I'm in the mood to watch "The Godfather", so bring it to me. Or, perhaps I want to see the Redskins win the Super Bowl in '87 again. And I want to see the best commercials from 1993, just to be nostalgic. This is what people want... and they want it in decent quality, and they don't want to pay a lot to do it. Unfortunately, this would kill broadcast television, the home video market, and the video rental market all at once - hypothetically, anyway. Just like Napster is killing radio, CD sales, and music stores - it's not really, but some people think the potential is there.
This just hastens the massacre on the way. TiVO itself is bad enough... but now people will be distributing those episodes of "Seinfeld" on the Internet for everyone to watch at anytime. It won't make a squat of difference at the moment on ratings, but once people have a taste of something like that, they continue down that path with or without the help of the entertainment industry. So, it's up to them to either provide services that would improve on what's available in the underground, or to die a slow miserable death trying to fight the oncoming rush of things bigger and better.
Of course, I don't support the idea of media being FREE, but then again, if there's not a convenient and practical way to pay for it, I'm not gonna deny myself the enjoyment of what's out there...
Perhaps it's fascist administration, but you know what? This is important in a lot of contexts regardless.
First of all, I believe that, the story as told, is just plain unfair, possibly illegal, and certainly ridiculous. Assuming that no laws were broken or that the student code of conduct had not been breached, any action taken in this story by any officials is simply cruel and oppressive. The way the story seems, it looks as if the new administration did not want to tolerate him anymore and simply pounced on him for being a nuisance. The expulsion is an unnecessary and unjustifiable measure, assuming that he did not post anything himself that violated the code of conduct.
Applying a copyright to the content adds to the state of oppression - while the university may have a right to do that, the ultimate purpose is to limit free speech and not to protect their intellectual property. In spirit, it's not theirs... it's only theirs technically for being on school property. Would you support your employer claiming copyright on a novel you wrote because it was written in a notebook belonging to the company?
Also, in this particular situation, the webmaster should not be directly held accountable for the actions of anonymous posters outside the context of his position. In my case, I worked on campus at a computing site, was late to work one day, and got fired as a result. Should the school have reprimanded me any further? This guy was in charge of the website, and any duty that he has in maintaining the website bears solely on the position he holds... simply put, if they don't like the website, they can dismiss it, but they can't apply the code of conduct to him if he did not violate it himself. And I doubt that the code of conduct includes a statement on "not eradicating all offensive anonymous speech by others" punishable by expulsion. Anything beyond the closing of the site and the copyright claim is simply retaliation. Beyond that, the university, having owned the server, is the real reponsible party for what was contained on the site... if they can claim copyright, they should face any lawsuits pending. They are responsible for their own property. I'm not saying they should be sued, but they should pay more attention to the content kept on their servers, or simply disallow anonymous posting / keep records of IPs / whatever.
Finally, it seems that this is either a hoax or not the full story. It just seems very improbable and not very well explained or backed up. So, let this be a lesson to all the people screaming about this right now... it may or may not be true. I know I'm not getting too worked up about it... but given even a hypothetical situation resembling this one, there is definitely a need for discussion.
By the way, you act as if you know the guy and don't like him. If this is the case, you seem like the kind of person I hated to death in college. Sorry for the cheap shot, but your post is simply flamebait and a troll - I'm just not sure which one it is more of.
I was taught when I was three years old not to pull a floppy disk out of the drive while it's writing. You, sir, apparently did not learn this most crucial-of-crucial tenets of the computing world.
I mean, just cause Linux CAN do it doesn't mean that it's a great feature. If it took more than half an hour to make such a feature, I can guarantee you it was a waste of time spent, since most computer users are taught not to touch the disk drive while it's writing. And I have no need to pull out disks while the light is on.
It doesn't represent "quality", it represents "code bloat". And that's MS's main game (extra features), one that no company has beat them on yet.
Not that Linux is that bad of an OS for a dinky webserver. Better than Windows ME and cheaper than NT. I would just hate to play games on it, though...
Californians also want it out of their sight, and they want it to be totally enviroment friendly - aka, no cutting down trees or blocking a mountain lion's cave to put up a transmission tower. And if they could demand such a thing, they would want each new power line to be blessed with good karma.
I think the power crisis is the reality check they need, before something truly dangerous happens out there. It's a good thing that they get motivated to act by minor inconveniences like rolling blackouts. (Although I do have to say that no blackout has affected my life, but they all have served to annoy the crap out of me, so I can't diss CA too much on that one)
In a nutshell... and I leave it up to anyone who's up to the task to find evidence of what I'm saying, I'm just relying on my personal memory here... the general public in America, and even the world, tends not to feel so strongly about freedom of information. It's just not a priority in their lives, and they don't involve themselves in the debate... and when it comes to computers, people want something that will improve the quality of their lives, even if the underlying product comes from a source that is morally disjoint with their values. This is why there are organized boycotts in this country... because most people need to make a serious effort to punish companies by denying them sales or support. It's a world-wide thing... kind of like how people in China don't destroy their own government because of the human rights violations in their country, they're just happy until they reach their breaking point of tolerance and patience.
RMS doesn't have any tolerance or patience. He's just, well, OUT THERE when it comes to freedom of information. History will either judge him as a pioneer (if society eventually turns to freedom of information and progress as being highly important) or perhaps as a kook (if he does all this grandstanding and we decide that information cannot be free, ever, as a society). I'm not taking any sides here, but I know that RMS is extreme in his actions and words. Furthermore, I would assume someone of his particular interests, lifestyle, and occupation would not be abreast of the current mindset of general society, in a nerdy sort of way... and my backup for this is that whole discussion about "Is it okay to make an open source game with non-open-source tools?" where he seemed not to know what a Playstation was (or something like that... if I'm wrong, please clarify for me). I'm assuming that he's not in touch with society - good for his personal causes, I assume, but bad for taking everything he says to heart.
It's somewhat akin to the process of creating the atom bomb... you can't just do that in a laboratory and then expect society not to be affected or changed by it. Freedom of information in a lot of ways is like an atom bomb against our capitalist culture... and I'm not sure whether it's good or bad for the world. All I know is, RMS is pushing very hard for it... and the general public does not feel that strongly, as I said above. I suppose it's a coup for him if he gets the general public thinking like him, but like I said above, if he comes across on his beliefs too strongly... he'll look like a madman. And even for an educated, open minded person such as myself (not to pat myself too much on the back), at times I find him to seem like a madman, even if I agree with him on some things or not.
Yea, I know all you guys are not happy about Mundie's mouth-spoutings, and I don't blame you if you disagree with him and want to argue against his points in a public forum. I think that would make a great debate.
Just don't let RMS do it. For the love of god.
I have to say, RMS does NOT share a mindset with most people, and he fights vigorously for what he believes in. While you might consider him inspiring, he's the last person you want to do a public debate to argue your opinions. Because he doesn't necessarily share your opinions... I find that his opinions are very extreme, in some cases off the deep end (this is a guy who would be Amish if someone held a patent on electricity). Some of his ideas are good, and some of his work has been extraordinary... but if you let him argue for your opinions, I guarantee he is going to make all of you look like extreme free software orthodox fundamentalists.
Simply put, his arguments are not balanced or flexible enough to safely engage in a debate with Microsoft in a public forum - he would lose solely on the basis that normal people would get freaked out at the intensity and seriousness of his thoughts and actions. I mean, after all, this guy needs his speech encoded in OGG cause he hates MP3s... how does he expect normal people to relate to him on any level if he wants them to discard MP3s as well? He may be a very accomplished man in his own belief system, but most people don't think on his level.
If you really want a good debate, we should find someone in the business world... someone in the role of a potential MS customer... who strongly advocates Linux, can argue and speak in public pretty well, and who doesn't sound like a zealot... and get them to argue our point. I think someone with that point of view would have the best ammunition and reasoning to counteract the FUD coming out of MS (since MS-FUD is always geared toward businesses, sort of like "You won't get fired for choosing IBM").
Litigation is a substantial enough threat to make very large companies change their entire course of direction to avoid anyone from following through on the threat of a lawsuit. Furthermore, companies are much more willing to settle cases on minimally favorable terms for their business just to get the lawsuit out of court: the threat of a decision going toward the undesired outcome is usually considered too great to have the luxury of avoiding a settlement.
Basically, two companies can grandstand all they want and claim that they are right in front of a judge, but most companies don't want to risk a court case and want to minimize legal fees... this is why the RIAA sucks. They are mind-bogglingly rich and can afford whatever legal onlslaught is necessary to get another organization to give up the ghost. Most small organizations can't afford a prolonged legal battle and can't stay in business if a crippling injunction is issued... the RIAA has the legal power and the money to attack both of these ways. And it's not as if a small company can just hire a cheap lawyer to run in and give a quick argument... they'll almost certainly lose the case that way. This is one way how the RIAA manipulates the legal system to get whatever they want.
Don't forget: if a company believes that they are right and decides to endure endless litigation to prove their point at whatever cost, the shareholders will be infuriated, and then THEY can sue the company for mismanagement. The record labels, on the other hand, will never sue the RIAA for mismanagement... they gladly feed them the money they need to bully around whomever they want. It's a puppet organization. Plus, only money matters to the record labels... the music is of no concern. Only the artists and the fans have anything to say about music at all, yet the RIAA has no interest in representing their needs at all. I think that last point is what Congress needs to see in the near future so that they can tweak the legal system to avoid these kind of dirty battles.
First of all, if IE is really a superior product to Netscape, and AOL is a fine ISP for most people's need, and if you have an option to use something else in either category if you so choose, then I don't see this as being anti-competitive... it's benefitting normal consumers. This is in the same vein as MS's consumer OS virtual monopoly being a lot more beneficial to consumers than having 10 different popular OSes with lesser features - as long as you can choose to use another operating system at any time. (When motherboard chipsets and hard drives begin to support only Windows and AOL, then I'll worry)
Second, Netscape is not dead, as long as AOL doesn't kill them off. Of course, this is virtually what's happening here, but neither AOL nor Netscape itself (pre-merger) showed any serious committment to providing consumers with something better... they were sitting on top of their own monopoly on the browser scene. Even now, Netscape and Operal are the popular options for non-Microsoft (or Apple) operating systems. They're not eliminating competition, they're simply taking the fight a step further. There's still a market for the other browsers, though.
Third, none of you people use Windows or AOL anyway. This helps all the people that use AOL and Windows. And it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't. This does not affect the Linux crowd at all.
Finally, this saves me a step in reformatting... now I don't have to go in the junk mail pile for an AOL cd anymore. And it saves trees and plastic.
Then again, I've already been assimilated, so it's too late for me.
Yea, I think NASA has been watching "3rd Rock From The Sun" a bit too much. Now they're getting ideas...
Of course, this is an organization that probably refers (internally) to any potential super high speed space travel technology as a "warp drive"...
Computers are only a small part of the equation here. The main purpose of a home PC is to provide convenience, productivity, and education. For adults, that is. Nothing on a computer is geared for a regular little kid. Yet over the last... oh, 6 years, there's been a crapload of 7-13 year olds getting online permanently, chatting over their instant messages, checking their email, and playing online games. I know some of you think that this is a good thing, but here's what I think... it SCARES me to think that there's a 9 year old out there, boy OR girl, who plays Diablo II for more than an hour a day and is pretty good at it. It's just shocking on so many levels... cause some 20 year olds can barely get the hang of it all.
However, it's just one more thing that's thrown onto little kids in order to get them in the rat race sooner. High school and even grammar school are focusing less on education and more on achievement... some states with their mandatory standardized tests for high school graduation, the rise of magnet schools, the fierce competition for college admissions, etc. Basically, the more you know, and the younger you know it, the more amazing you are... and the pressure is on kids to excel tremendously in piddly-widdly knowledge categories at the expense of everything else that's healthy or vital to them. It's a nationwide spelling bee culture... how the hell does some seven year old kid who can spell "chaturnaliontics" get on the news? That's almost sad to me. Maybe I would prefer to watch a news program where kids run around outside and play dodgeball (whoops, can't do that either... don't even get me started).
So all these kids are being pushed around to achieve, achieve, achieve. And for what? So they can become our future doctors, consultants, mathematicians, programmers, and the like... but not managers! Hahah, joke's on them, cause in the future, the upper management of every company will still be the CEO's frat buddies, and that will never change. For the rest of their lives, the achieving kids will be working for other people... that is, if the never stop and think about it. After slaving away in kindergarten, grammar school, middle school, high school, college, internships, and in the workforce... well, the business world actually wants them to do nothing else ever, since that's the best thing for the bottom line. Basically, it's a road to burnout... or suicide, which usually comes in the early teens when kids can't handle their shit and they're too stupid to think about the long term picture and how they can do better for themselves. Hey, if I were 14, and I got a C on a test, and everyone would be disappointed cause that would mean I can't go to Harvard... I'd kill myself too.
Computers are just one more thing to throw at kids to force them to achieve. And then, even worse, it's another electronic babysitter. What's more dangerous to you... running around the local park every day and one day falling off the monkey bars and knocking out a few teeth, or sitting on a computer for your entire childhood talking to w@r3Z d00dz and pedophiles? This is only exacerbated by the lack of kids' champions in politics today... increasingly, no one gives a damn about kids cause kids don't vote at least for another 30 years. Kids have nothing to do anymore because all of their fun stuff has been getting phased out in the interests of "childrens safety". We generally can't afford to have a friendly police officer monitor the local playground to keep the crack dealers out, but we can afford metal detectors for grammar schools. We can also crack down hard on some kid who brings a nail clipper to school by accident, saying it's a deadly weapon.
Oh, and it's not only the smart kids who are bored. EVERYONE is bored. The smart kids just find intelligent things to do. The dumb kids get into drugs. If smoking pot were an academic achievement, we'd have a nation of geniuses.
Yea I know this. Hence, we can listen to a public domain performance of Mozart done by my high school's band, and that'll be alright with everyone.
Although we can't sing "Happy Birthday". That's still under copyright.
... that this happens when mp3.com's stock price is way down and Napster's dying off?
It could be a good business venture for them. There's a lot of original artists on there, and it's basically a seeding pool for new artists. And it's got brand name recognition, too. Maybe they have some good plans for it.
Or maybe it's a conspiracy to take away our dear MP3 files from us and force us to rent our N'Sync from big fatcat record label honchos a week at a time. Oh well... anyone up for some non-copyrighted Mozart?
I'll reply to this, the highest modded reply.
You're right. But consider this: people buying PCs now will pay $1800 for a PC if that's what it's sold for. They will pay $1500 as well, but if they can't find a $1500 computer that they want, they'll pay $1800.
The PC market recently devoured itself, so I think the big guys can safely price computers a little higher and not worry about losing sales to cheap competitors, most of which have died off in the past two years. It sounds like collusion, but in reality, none of these manufacturers can afford to be loss leaders for much longer - market share and service contracts previously buoyed up these companies' stocks, which made it look like they were all ridiculously successful. Now they're all in the tank, and it's time to charge more for their products. Now that I'm moving on from being a poor college student and going into the real world making real money, $1800 for a solid computer doesn't sound so bad. Except I still know how to build em much cheaper, so more power to me.
Yea, there's lots of stuff in economics and accounting that would help these companies set their prices right, but let's look at it this way... they've been ignoring economics for years anyway. For all the computations that PCs can do, they still haven't calculated how to make solid profits and generate stable economic figures.
Just like Yahoo! should now start charging modestly for all the news, e-mail, games, clubs, etc. they provide, since I'd rather pay for them than see them go away... but that's offtopic.
I mean, why charge ANYONE a lower price? They should just sell all their computers to everyone at the highest price they're willing to sell at.
No, this is not a troll.
These are businesses that survive on profit margins... and who sell to a lot of middle-class individuals and corporations. If they just keep the prices at the highest level, people are gonna buy from these companies ANYWAY... people are not knowledgeable enough about computers, and it's too much of an inconvenience, for people to be able to tell when they're paying a bit more than they should. While this sounds kind of slimy from a consumer point of view, computers are rather useful machines, and I always thought that the benefits of a factory-made computer justified the higher prices.
This won't affect hobbyists. They never buy from these companies anyway. And it doesn't affect poor people, either... they can't afford such a computer anyway (I know, that's not the way things should be, but let's face it, poor people should be getting a PeoplePC or an eMachine or something like that... and that's only if they're able to eat first. Otherwise, a computer is a convenient luxury... like an in-house washer and dryer set).
Maybe if these companies set higher prices, and they prove people are willing to buy at those higher prices, the computer manufacturers don't have to keep dipping prices below profit levels, and you won't see the carnage that existed in the industry over the past few years. Yea, it's not the best short term solution for the consumer, but it's better long-term for the consumer and the industry. Besides, it's a wise investment for any consumer, and perhaps people will be more inclined to price shop and become knowledgeable about the machines themselves if they have to think about the price more... getting a whole computer for $300 after the MSN rebate doesn't require a whole lot of thinking for most people, after all...
Wow, this is textbook trolling / karma whoring. But whatever... I like the challenge.
What I want to know is, why does free software have enemies in Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc.? I mean, granted, what those companies do as businesses are against the tenets of free software, and yes they do have products that directly compete with free software products, but how does that make them the enemies?
I mean, can't business and freedom of information co-exist in the world? Are these companies doing anything to stop the thoughts and expressions of free software advocates? Sony didn't kill Indrema, lack of funding did. Putting aside Indrema's death as a business, no one has been prevented at this point from introducing a free software based game console system. Anyone can do it if they want to, and if they have the proper resources at hand.
The essay I'm replying to does not state how the success of game consoles by these companies equates to "a crushing blow against freedom". It's simply a business. I don't think their business infringes on anyone's freedom. No one is suppressed because Sony sells a lot of games. I just want to state this not just as a reply to the essay, but to warn the rest of the free software world that declaring war on Microsoft and the rest of the evil empire type companies is illogical. Microsoft doesn't threaten free software... it's lack of interest that threatens free software... it's indifference... it's stupidity that is the threat. If people know about free software, the battle has been won... people will have had a choice, seen the choice, and someone will have expressed themselves to the world against the tyranny of anyone whose best interests is to stop them. Microsoft doesn't attack free software projects as operations and try to stop them from ever appearing... it simply tries to sell its own product as the better alternative, no matter how much spin they put on the situation. So why try to fight them? They're never going to kill free software, they never have tried and they aren't currently trying as well.
Therefore, if you're going to be an advocate, stop picking fights with people you disagree with and start presenting a better argument. That's how you win debates. Not with bitchslapping.
is exactly what you state. Things don't work as expected. We'll be trying to cure baldness and we may inadvertently sterilize the whole human race. Most discoveries are made by accident. The good AND the bad ones...
Real men use IP addresses ;)
I believe any works produced by the government are exempt from copyright, patent, trademark, etc...
While I know that this law was submitted by a group of private citizens, once it enters law, it was drafted (somehow) by legislators into an official document, making it a government work, making it non-copyrightable in that form. Otherwise, we have two catastrophes of justice here:
1. Groups who compose laws then have unreasonable control over the distribution of the information contained in the law.
2. Private citizens are then directly submitting laws for approval to legislature, in the absence of elected officials whose job it is to compose our laws.
This a "what SHOULD happen" case, not "what DOES happen" case. But certainly, the Supreme Court would not uphold this kind of copyright - after all, law is supposed to be public record, and I can't see the government getting trapped into this kind of mess. After all, then shouldn't we be paying royalties to the RIAA and the MPAA out of taxes for every reference to the DMCA?!?!
Excellent point.
I suppose that operating systems are a tough business to be in anyway... that is, suppose a lot of the reasons why Windows is an "entrenched" OS (application support, hardware support, brand name recognition, ease-of-use, existing user base, etc.) were nullified by Monday morning at 10am. I seriously doubt that Linux, BeOS, and OS/2 would fill in all the gaps and/or do a better job for most users anytime within the next 2 years. But even more important, I seriously doubt that someone on Monday morning, deciding to seize the opportunity, could make an OS from scratch within the next two years that could compete among the remaining OSes. Considering that a very large user base, several times the size of the MS Windows core development team, has spent the better part of a decade building a better OS from scratch in an open and collaborative process, yet only 5% of the market uses it and most admit that it's not ready for most of the 85% majority OS users, that says something about the sheer difficulty of living up to the expectations set by Windows.
Before anyone adds that MS is anticompetitive and THAT'S why they're entrenched... well, Linux is free, it's been around awhile, and the business world knows about it. With all respect to the concept that people don't like change... I think the expense of Windows licenses would be enough motivation for the majority of the business world and computer manufacturers to jump ship by now. But Windows apparently has enough advantages to keep a lot of people in its tent.
The fact is, Windows, Linux, and now even OS X, constantly set a very high bar for what's expected in an operating system. OS X took YEARS to come around, and GNU/Linux is a very complex system for providing a very complete library of tools and applications that can be bundled as a package (and unbundled, as well). I marvel at innovation that's so speedy and prolific like this.
Microsoft plays unfair? Probably. But in this "business", I doubt that fair could ever win anymore. I think that at some point we have to settle for "unfair" but "pretty damn good". Just like with Intel... they might have a questionable lock on their market (well, AMD has been creeping in on them for a number of years and they're permanently in the game now), but can you really look down on a company that has kept up with Moore's Law for over two decades? If we had 10 processor vendors competing harshly today to sell 33mhz processors, would that be better for the consumer?
The article starts with a very good, yet oft-stated point about mp3s and Napster. That is, the only reason why the RIAA could possibly be upset at the habits of mp3 users is that they're obsessed with gouging us as much as possible... mp3 files don't reduce album sales, they simply help people avoid bad purchases (and sometimes help them make better ones too).
Then he rants about MS and their OS pricing policy - actually, he's not happy with ANY company that sells an OS, he feels they're all too expensive. He states that he does pay for them, but only once and with the intent of using them multiple times. This is apples to oranges when compared to the first story... the first story should have been something about wanting the right to buy a CD and make copies to keep in the car, at work, at home, backup, etc...
Then the third point has nothing to do with the other two, and philosophically disagrees with the first two: WPA has the indirect effect of removing the priviledges that he expects in the first two stories!
Perhaps the author should try posting three separate, complete, philisophically agreeing essays about each topic rather than provide us a grab bag of snippets. I would be more interested in seeing that.
Ah, if we could only moderate stories posted to the front page... there's some good stories on the main page that need some bumping up today.
That pretty much describes the events of today.
Douglas Adams had an uncanny sense of wit... one that most authors would give a lung and a kidney just to have for one novel. Although the "Dirk Gently" books never quite caught on with me, I do own all 5 Hitchhiker's Trilogy books (yes, an increasingly inappropriately named trilogy... and yes, the leather bound version) and they rank among the top 10 books/authors I have ever read. There is something quite upsetting about someone dying this young, someone with so much creative force left in him, but his contributions to our souls and to all of pop culture will exist forever and ever. We will never lose them.
The feeling is not entirely unlike Arthur Dent's feeling after losing Fenchurch in a hyperspace jump, though. This is beyond unexpected, and there's a feeling of helplessness as well. Plus, we all want to see that movie made the RIGHT way, and eventually I want to be carrying around my "Don't Panic" PDA. Palm might generate great business by selling one of its' wireless access models with those words on the cover, as a tribute.
I might add that I have two favorite authors, and I expected one of them to be dead any time soon now... except the other died extremely unexpectedly, and the other isn't getting any younger. So, someone, please, call and find out how Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is feeling today...
Well, I don't think that the actual database is copyrighted... no, you can't do that, it is free to copy...
However, the algorithm for determining a CD's unique ID to store in the database (as well as look up entries in the database) is patented. I don't know how Roxio could possibly be liable for using an alternate data source and using a patented algorithm to do lookups - when previously they were using a non-copyrighted data source with the same algorithm, and they were in compliance with the law.
I do think that the algorithm should be patented, though. I just don't like the company that holds the patent. Plus, it's a de-facto standard now, so there should be some sort of compulsory licensing solution for it. Gracenote will still make money hand over fist that way, but they can't squash competition with it...
Turtle power!
(Sorry... with all these X-Men references, I had to bring Donatello, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Raphael into it. Don't forget Splinter. Or Bebop and Rocksteady. Or any of the other mutants in the comics/cartoon.)