Will Palladium prevent my ability to reply first to a Slashdot article? Could Microsoft decide that I'm not a "trusted source"? Is this the end of the anonymous coward?
I'm surprised by all the "Company Blah has been doing this for years" messages. I could have sworn that the slashdot crowd was savy to Microsoft's techniques and strengths as well as weaknesses by now.
Far from being shamed by having someone point out to MS that "someone else did it first", they'd be very proud. And rightfully so! The "embrace and extend" business strategy is pure genius and they have executed on it to a T. They have no need to innovate...their entire model is based on version 3 crushing the competition.
Even if you don't like MS you have to grant them a significant strength in that area. Also, it leads to some good (if not original) software!
Millions of people wouldn't use Windows and Office if they sucked. It just wouldn't make any sense. Entire industries have MS software as their foundation of doing business...to the same degree has using phones and copiers!
The irony here is that they can even "embrace and extend" the marketing campaigns of their competitors! Brilliance.
I'm amazed. MS will be here long after the cockroaches.
"What you do with that ability is up to you."...so long as you use that ability to believe in Jesus, or else you'll end up being tortured for many a moon.
On the main page of www.riaa.org they have a link to an article that uses the "think of the starving artists" angle to attempt to win sympathy against the evil music downloading masses.
I'd link to the article but the site is/.'ed
In any event, it occurred to me that the RIAA is right!!
The truth is, we shouldn't expect to NOT have to pay the artists for music we listen to. My question is related to what an artist's legal requirements are relating to money received directly from consumers (under a standard contract). If I send Dave Matthews $10, does he technically have to share any of that with his label?
My guess is there are no such requirements. Hence, let's do the things that matter:
1) Boycott. You can't really boycott the RIAA so much as you can boycott their constiuent companies. Keep in mind that boycotting the RIAA companies will be painful for you as a consumer since you probably like products by some of these companies that are not music related (sorry, no more PS2 games for you).
Also remember that it is even more effective when you're boycotting a company to write to them (preferably a VP or C-level personnel related to customer satisfaction) and let them know why. Get a group of friends together and send a petition.
2) Send money for songs you download directly to the artist, and let them know why you are doing it that way. What is reasonable? A couple bucks a song? I'll let you decide, but document what you're doing and then we'll start to have some statistics to counter the RIAA.
Money talks. Legislation is irrelevant. All we have to do is focus our efforts, together, on making enough of an impact on a single company at a time as is required to make them change their behaviour.
Actually, quantum physics protects key distribution from retransmission. One of the fundamental benefits of quantum cryptography is the reliance on the principle that measurement affcts that which is being measured.
In short: it is possible for the sender / receiver to determine if their key was intercepted by using unsecure communication of other information that doesn't benefit anyone else that may happen to see it.
For a great explanation of how to protect your key distribution in this way, see
this article in the New Scientist.
OK, so I'm confused about the fact that someone can be prosecuted for circumventing copy-protection schemes, but now circumvention will be the only way to enjoy our legal and well-established fair use rights.
I'm not the first one to be confused about this I think, but could someone enlighten me?
Slashdot Mirror
Will Palladium prevent my ability to reply first to a Slashdot article? Could Microsoft decide that I'm not a "trusted source"? Is this the end of the anonymous coward?
Oh, the humanity.
"In the BattleBox, Tesla's Tornado is a 117.9-pound block of spinning, smashing steel"
Anyone know how much Katz weighs? If it is more than 117.9 pounds, just imagine the possibilities!
It shouldn't be too hard to retrofit him with the appropriate wheels and circuitry. Just imagine the possibilities of a spinning, smashing Jon Katz!
(woah...and what if we made a Beowulf cluster of 'em)
I'm surprised by all the "Company Blah has been doing this for years" messages. I could have sworn that the slashdot crowd was savy to Microsoft's techniques and strengths as well as weaknesses by now.
Far from being shamed by having someone point out to MS that "someone else did it first", they'd be very proud. And rightfully so! The "embrace and extend" business strategy is pure genius and they have executed on it to a T. They have no need to innovate...their entire model is based on version 3 crushing the competition.
Even if you don't like MS you have to grant them a significant strength in that area. Also, it leads to some good (if not original) software!
Millions of people wouldn't use Windows and Office if they sucked. It just wouldn't make any sense. Entire industries have MS software as their foundation of doing business...to the same degree has using phones and copiers!
The irony here is that they can even "embrace and extend" the marketing campaigns of their competitors! Brilliance.
I'm amazed. MS will be here long after the cockroaches.
-SF
"What you do with that ability is up to you." ...so long as you use that ability to believe in Jesus, or else you'll end up being tortured for many a moon.
On the main page of www.riaa.org they have a link to an article that uses the "think of the starving artists" angle to attempt to win sympathy against the evil music downloading masses.
/.'ed
I'd link to the article but the site is
In any event, it occurred to me that the RIAA is right!!
The truth is, we shouldn't expect to NOT have to pay the artists for music we listen to. My question is related to what an artist's legal requirements are relating to money received directly from consumers (under a standard contract). If I send Dave Matthews $10, does he technically have to share any of that with his label?
My guess is there are no such requirements. Hence, let's do the things that matter:
1) Boycott. You can't really boycott the RIAA so much as you can boycott their constiuent companies. Keep in mind that boycotting the RIAA companies will be painful for you as a consumer since you probably like products by some of these companies that are not music related (sorry, no more PS2 games for you).
Also remember that it is even more effective when you're boycotting a company to write to them (preferably a VP or C-level personnel related to customer satisfaction) and let them know why. Get a group of friends together and send a petition.
2) Send money for songs you download directly to the artist, and let them know why you are doing it that way. What is reasonable? A couple bucks a song? I'll let you decide, but document what you're doing and then we'll start to have some statistics to counter the RIAA.
Money talks. Legislation is irrelevant. All we have to do is focus our efforts, together, on making enough of an impact on a single company at a time as is required to make them change their behaviour.
Actually, quantum physics protects key distribution from retransmission. One of the fundamental benefits of quantum cryptography is the reliance on the principle that measurement affcts that which is being measured. In short: it is possible for the sender / receiver to determine if their key was intercepted by using unsecure communication of other information that doesn't benefit anyone else that may happen to see it. For a great explanation of how to protect your key distribution in this way, see this article in the New Scientist.
OK, so I'm confused about the fact that someone can be prosecuted for circumventing copy-protection schemes, but now circumvention will be the only way to enjoy our legal and well-established fair use rights.
I'm not the first one to be confused about this I think, but could someone enlighten me?