Don't be so naive to believe that the majority of these piracy cases results from a lack of cable access. Perhaps it does happen sometimes, but I'm not inclined to believe that dorms that have access to broadband Internet connections don't have access to cable television.
I suppose it's possible, with the exception of those shows (usually sporting events) which state that "This broadcast is property of . No portion of this broadcast may be redistributed or reproduced without the express written permission of."
For all other shows, the ownership claim is probably hidden somewhere in the fine print at the end of the credits.
Would the government be held to comply with the GPL? I'm not sure it's such a good idea to compel the governmentto publicize the source code of potentially sensitive programs.
Of course I wouldn't have a problem with the government using unmodified open-source packages like Linux, but the practicality of that is an argument for another day.:)
When commercial vendors want to add functionality to their product that is already available, they pay to use that code. It worked great for id Software lisencing their game engines. I could see such a royalties system benefit both parties, as the commercial vendor would have a more robust product, and the WINE project would get valuable funding to support it's open-source endeavors.
"Shouldn't we *know* about the systems and processes of our goverment?
To an extent, but not when the information presented can be used by an adversary's (generic term). I can't tell you specifics (the whole "I'd have to kill you" thing) but you would be amazed what people have been able to piece together from open source information, and more amazing still is how it was exploited.
I was, of course, referring to the 'open source' definition you stated, but in certain contexts, they can be related, like when the government is showing off software and systems they are/will be implementing.
In games which boast of ever increasing realism, one rarely sees the omni-present advertisements that... decorate... our everyday life.
Like the headline says, there shouldn't be anything particularly wrong with inserting well-placed and relevant ads into games. To me, personally, it would add that missing element or realism, and help keep some of these quality, but financially-strapped game developers in business.
I work for the DoD (Department of Defense) and recently attended a Web Content Vulnerability seminar at the NSA's Cryptologic school, and one of the points they stressed was how open-source information can often yield more useful intelligence than classified information.
Being that open source information is relatively easier to acquire, more of it can be gathered and pieced together to make a more complete picture than scattered pieces of classified information.
In the Bazaar, as I read it, alot of open source information is being shared. I'm a little apprehensive, especially after that seminar, that if the wrong people are allowed to acquire alot of this information, they can eventually piece together and learn an awful lot about the future systems, processes, etc. of our government.
In light of the current conflict abroad and at home, I don't think making all this information available is necessarily a Good Thing (tm).
The Armed Forces are also funded by taxpayer money. By your reasing, anyone who wants to take the nearest F-16 or M1 tank for a casual spin around the block should be able to.
Quit trying to turn this into a YRIOS (Your Rights In Outer Space). I would hope that NASA would be as strict as possible when deciding who to grant access to multi-million (billion?) dollar equipment and technology.
There's a little something they call "accountability" and "fiscal responsibility" that demands strict guidelines. I sure as hell wouldn't want my tax dolars to sponsor the joyride of a crack-addict junky, no matter how rich they may be.
When highly controversial court cases take center stage, it has become common practice of our mass media to leap upon the story like a mad beast and tear at it, and pull on it, and mangle it until it is no longer recognizable. In this process, the true goal of the proceedings is lost, and the focus becomes the persuit of every mundane detail.
Our more recent, highly publicized court cases have fallen prey to this media frenzy. Now, OJ Simpson walks as a free man, thanks to the travesty of justice that was his trial, and Bill Clinton's legacy is now "the guy who got a hummer in the Oval Office", instead of "the guy who purjured himself, obstructed justice, and disgraced the Presidency".
So I ask the Slashdot community: is extensive media coverage of the Microsoft proceedings necessary? As is demonstrated on this site daily, this issue is an emotionally-charged one, and the media hounds will do more harm by running wantonly with similar emotion. The focus of Microsoft's business practices will be lost, and people it claims to serve will be misled, all in the name of 'getting the scoop'.
Please consider letting the justice system do it's duty without undue distraction. Trust me, with the power at Microsoft's disposal, their task is difficult enough as it is.
True, it is here in America, but what about in the UK where this is the issue at hand? I'm not going to pretend to know UK copyright laws (hell, who truly understands the US laws?) but I suggest that there are many countries whose copyright laws are not as comprehensive as our own.
Just look at all the unpunished piracy that goes on in, for example, Malaysia. The varying levels of protection offered in different parts of the world makes licensing necessary.
"Yet with software and, increasingly, hardware, we tolerate buying "licenses" instead of buying the product, and being tied down to restrictive agreements that would be null and void or even illegal in most other cases."
I hope this isn't modded Redundant, but bear with me.
The problem I have with this statement is that this argument doesn't take the other side into consideration.
Imagine, if you will, buying the product instead of a lisence. Having outright ownership to the product entitles you to do with it whatever you want, up to and including making hundres of copies of the product (a PS2 game, in this case) and freely distributing it at no charge.
While many Slashdotters would consider this a Good Thing(TM), they fail to realize that such a scenario would mean the quick demise of the software industry. Revenue (let alone profits) would plummet; who would buy software for $50 when they can just copy it from John Smith for free? Sooner or later (most likely sooner) there wouldn't be any new games for John to copy.
This is why lisencing as it exists today is the norm. Unfortunately, such a system is also prone to abuse, but I think the good (the continued existence of the software industry) outweighs the bad (unreasonable EULA's and overzealous attourneys).
...live recordings from studio recordings (the kind usually ripped from CD's)? I can't imagine that someone actually listens to all of the music being transferred through the network to determine if it's live or not, and I doubt there's software that can do this either.
These just looks like yet another crop of well-intentioned systems that are openly inviting abuse. Whether that is the true intention of the developers, with an honest-sounding mission to cover their asses, we really can't speculate... yet.
We shall certainly see, though, once the RIAA inevitably turns its attention to these new networks.
Does this remind anyone of how the Dutch bought what is today known as Manhattan for a chest of trinkets and beads from the local natives? (no need to bring up the "Liberal Myth") $45 mil might seem like alot, but not next to what VeriSign probably expects to reap in profits.
IANAL, and I usually take the side of The Man(TM) in these cases, I see a disturbing possibility here.
While these Internet Cafes are unregulated, I don't think there's anything besides a temporary moratorium that The Man(TM) can do to shut them down. However, if they decided to step in and make the the operation of these things a legal privlege (such as driving lisences, licquer lisences) that can be revoked, then we'll really start to see them stopm on what used to be our rights.
In recent news, many Qwest DSL customers are being pushed into MSN because they aren't aware they have a choice in the matter.
So Microsoft is bad because it doesn't advertise for its competitors?
If Windows came with Netscape, it'd be a much more widely used browser.
Yeah, and if a RedHat CD was included with every copy of Windows XP, Linux would be a more widely-used OS. Of course, neither of these make any sense from a business standpoint.
Ya see, this argument isn't about giving all products a fair opportunity for success. This is, to use your Affirmative Action argument, about demanding that Microsoft give up a share of its success to others who have not necessarily earned it.
#2881725: "Can't speak for the rest of the slashdotters, but I don't want them to be prosecuted..."
#2881950: "Certainly they should be prosecuted..."
Not exactly an airtight argument, wouldn't you say? Frankly I believe your first statement, and I have no problem with that as long as you can defend your stance. Apparently you decided you couldn't, because you later reversed your original statement.
Slashdot Mirror
However if you could copyright your post, and I reprinted it without your permission, you would have legal grounds to sue me.
Don't be so naive to believe that the majority of these piracy cases results from a lack of cable access. Perhaps it does happen sometimes, but I'm not inclined to believe that dorms that have access to broadband Internet connections don't have access to cable television.
I suppose it's possible, with the exception of those shows (usually sporting events) which state that "This broadcast is property of . No portion of this broadcast may be redistributed or reproduced without the express written permission of ."
For all other shows, the ownership claim is probably hidden somewhere in the fine print at the end of the credits.
...if we combine this technology with that of the Meat-Eating Robot. :)
Of course I wouldn't have a problem with the government using unmodified open-source packages like Linux, but the practicality of that is an argument for another day. :)
When commercial vendors want to add functionality to their product that is already available, they pay to use that code. It worked great for id Software lisencing their game engines. I could see such a royalties system benefit both parties, as the commercial vendor would have a more robust product, and the WINE project would get valuable funding to support it's open-source endeavors.
Heh, if Internet access becomes as important to a person as shelter and food, it's called an addiction, not a right :).
To an extent, but not when the information presented can be used by an adversary's (generic term). I can't tell you specifics (the whole "I'd have to kill you" thing) but you would be amazed what people have been able to piece together from open source information, and more amazing still is how it was exploited.
I was, of course, referring to the 'open source' definition you stated, but in certain contexts, they can be related, like when the government is showing off software and systems they are/will be implementing.
Like the headline says, there shouldn't be anything particularly wrong with inserting well-placed and relevant ads into games. To me, personally, it would add that missing element or realism, and help keep some of these quality, but financially-strapped game developers in business.
Being that open source information is relatively easier to acquire, more of it can be gathered and pieced together to make a more complete picture than scattered pieces of classified information.
In the Bazaar, as I read it, alot of open source information is being shared. I'm a little apprehensive, especially after that seminar, that if the wrong people are allowed to acquire alot of this information, they can eventually piece together and learn an awful lot about the future systems, processes, etc. of our government.
In light of the current conflict abroad and at home, I don't think making all this information available is necessarily a Good Thing (tm).
The Armed Forces are also funded by taxpayer money. By your reasing, anyone who wants to take the nearest F-16 or M1 tank for a casual spin around the block should be able to.
There's a little something they call "accountability" and "fiscal responsibility" that demands strict guidelines. I sure as hell wouldn't want my tax dolars to sponsor the joyride of a crack-addict junky, no matter how rich they may be.
Next time read more than the first sentence of the story, moron.
I can't decide if the idea of a 3-ton monstrosity spinning at 8000 RPM is more frightening or comical.
Trust me, the larger scale of the 'bots will have an enormous impact on their design and capabilities.
Our more recent, highly publicized court cases have fallen prey to this media frenzy. Now, OJ Simpson walks as a free man, thanks to the travesty of justice that was his trial, and Bill Clinton's legacy is now "the guy who got a hummer in the Oval Office", instead of "the guy who purjured himself, obstructed justice, and disgraced the Presidency".
So I ask the Slashdot community: is extensive media coverage of the Microsoft proceedings necessary? As is demonstrated on this site daily, this issue is an emotionally-charged one, and the media hounds will do more harm by running wantonly with similar emotion. The focus of Microsoft's business practices will be lost, and people it claims to serve will be misled, all in the name of 'getting the scoop'.
Please consider letting the justice system do it's duty without undue distraction. Trust me, with the power at Microsoft's disposal, their task is difficult enough as it is.
Let's get with it, reporters.
http://www.techtv.com/news/computing/story/0,24195 ,3369727,00.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-824392.html
True, it is here in America, but what about in the UK where this is the issue at hand? I'm not going to pretend to know UK copyright laws (hell, who truly understands the US laws?) but I suggest that there are many countries whose copyright laws are not as comprehensive as our own.
Just look at all the unpunished piracy that goes on in, for example, Malaysia. The varying levels of protection offered in different parts of the world makes licensing necessary.
I hope this isn't modded Redundant, but bear with me.
The problem I have with this statement is that this argument doesn't take the other side into consideration.
Imagine, if you will, buying the product instead of a lisence. Having outright ownership to the product entitles you to do with it whatever you want, up to and including making hundres of copies of the product (a PS2 game, in this case) and freely distributing it at no charge.
While many Slashdotters would consider this a Good Thing(TM), they fail to realize that such a scenario would mean the quick demise of the software industry. Revenue (let alone profits) would plummet; who would buy software for $50 when they can just copy it from John Smith for free? Sooner or later (most likely sooner) there wouldn't be any new games for John to copy.
This is why lisencing as it exists today is the norm. Unfortunately, such a system is also prone to abuse, but I think the good (the continued existence of the software industry) outweighs the bad (unreasonable EULA's and overzealous attourneys).
These just looks like yet another crop of well-intentioned systems that are openly inviting abuse. Whether that is the true intention of the developers, with an honest-sounding mission to cover their asses, we really can't speculate... yet.
We shall certainly see, though, once the RIAA inevitably turns its attention to these new networks.
Does this remind anyone of how the Dutch bought what is today known as Manhattan for a chest of trinkets and beads from the local natives? (no need to bring up the "Liberal Myth") $45 mil might seem like alot, but not next to what VeriSign probably expects to reap in profits.
While these Internet Cafes are unregulated, I don't think there's anything besides a temporary moratorium that The Man(TM) can do to shut them down. However, if they decided to step in and make the the operation of these things a legal privlege (such as driving lisences, licquer lisences) that can be revoked, then we'll really start to see them stopm on what used to be our rights.
In recent news, many Qwest DSL customers are being pushed into MSN because they aren't aware they have a choice in the matter.
So Microsoft is bad because it doesn't advertise for its competitors?
If Windows came with Netscape, it'd be a much more widely used browser.
Yeah, and if a RedHat CD was included with every copy of Windows XP, Linux would be a more widely-used OS. Of course, neither of these make any sense from a business standpoint.
Ya see, this argument isn't about giving all products a fair opportunity for success. This is, to use your Affirmative Action argument, about demanding that Microsoft give up a share of its success to others who have not necessarily earned it.
#2881725: "Can't speak for the rest of the slashdotters, but I don't want them to be prosecuted..."
#2881950: "Certainly they should be prosecuted..."
Not exactly an airtight argument, wouldn't you say? Frankly I believe your first statement, and I have no problem with that as long as you can defend your stance. Apparently you decided you couldn't, because you later reversed your original statement.