Re:Oh yeah? I call shovel time...
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"...and forcing me to "sign" draconian agreements to use software YOU force me to use."
So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows? Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?
"Isn't the carpool lane supposed to reward drivers for reducing their fossil fuel emmissions?"
No, it's supposed to reward people for carpooling and reducing traffic congestion. Unless you're suggesting that my SUV will get better mileage in the HOV lane;)
It is NOT illegal to make a copy of something you own for your own personal use, so please don't cite that as an example of how unfair our copyright laws are.
Reading your carrying-on here, I would think you'd be grateful that the NYT didn't accurately portray you. You sound like a maladjusted 12-year old who's just looking for any excuse to throw a temper tantrum.
Honestly, I don't know why the NYT would run an article about some angry douchebag who plays video games and is sorely lacking in social interaction skills. Must have been a slow news day.
"Think of it as another manifestation of the miracle of Open Source"
Microsoft provided a mod tool for their popular Dungeon Siege game, and many new modifications and additional content has been created by users. Does that make it Open Source? Hardly (comon, this is Microsoft we're talking about).
I'm afraid a modification tool is a far cry from Open Source (don't tell me they let you download the source code of NWN, did they?).
"Also, their decision might involve PT Barnum's quote about the mean birth rate of suckers."
If the artists don't understand the terms of the contract they are signing, that's their own damn fault.
"I gotta ask... is there a chance you're motivated by a job in the industry?"
No, my job has nothing to do with the music industry.
"you've apparently fallen for the brainwashing that we have to pay the industry to enjoy the arts"
Incorrect, though I've apparently fallen for the absurd notion that artists should be compensated for their contributions. If the artists prefer to get screwed by the RIAA, that's their fault. There are plenty of other (and dare I say smarter) artists out there performing independent of RIAA masters.
"You're poisoning the well and any effort is worth silencing you"
No need to be nasty here, I'm trying to have a civil discussion, and apparently you'd rather silence me than prove me wrong.
Glad to see you'd rather anonymously (coward) mod me down than to refute my argument. You should have saved yourself the effort.
"-- The RIAA members routinely force artists to sign contracts that are unfair (in my opinion)
You're absolutely right, that's YOUR opinion. The fact that there are thousands of bands and artists lining up to get a contract suggests your opinion is wrong.
The RIAA members routinely practice accounting in a way that deprives the artists of (in my opinion) what little royalties they're allowed after item 1 is done with them
Again, your opinion. If the artists feel they are being unfairly compensated, they can do as Pearl Jam did and not persue another contract.
As for the rest of your rant, wipe the froth from your mouth and take a deep breath. You're sounding like JonKatz!
Again, do I think the RIAA is good? Not really (it doesn't affect my much though because I have little intrest in today's music). Do I think their business model is outdated? You bet! But the people who illegally share music has to accept a portion of the blame for ridiculous laws such as the DMCA. If they didn't illegally copy music, there would never have been an perceived (by the RIAA) need for such overreaching laws.
I think that concepts like Apple's iTunes will go a long way in providing a legal and convenient way for customers to obtain the music they want. But there will always be a significant population that believes they are entitled to free music, and will use just about anything to justify their position.
"The RIAA shill that answered all of those questions was full of it.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about! You don't believe what their representatives say, so you simply fill in the blank with what you think is consistent with your opinion of them.
OK I'm going to spend a few kharma points to get my point across, but I have made a few observation about the nature of these RIAA stories that just have gotten under my skin.
First of all, these people aren't 'swapping' anything. That implies a trade where one item (or file) is exchanged for another one, with an implied transfer of ownership. They are COPYING music from one another, not trading it (and trading CDs is NOT illegal, contrary to what some seem to believe).
And that brings me to rant #2. It's easy to regard the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when you read (and believe) some of the things people claim the RIAA believes/practices. People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true! People make these claims without providing a shred of evidence to back up their assertions. They might as well be accusing Hillary Rosen of violating young children, with as much proof they base their statements on.
Please read this article which clarifies many of the misconceptions about the RIAA's position on fair usage. I think some of you will be very surprised (I know I was).
Is the RIAA perfect? Not even close. But putting words into their mouth for the sake of tricking people into thinking you know something they don't is no way to conduct an honest and meaningful discussion.
"This will simply cause companies like Microsoft to pay for their anti-competitive practices."
So is your beef with Microsoft only, or the entire commercial software industry?
Ironically, Microsoft is probably the only company that would be able to afford to pay the 10%. A goodly portion of the already-fragile software industry would go belly-up if Uncle Sam were to take 10% off of their bottom line.
And especially in this economy/job market, that would be a really bad thing. Please think through the consequences of the greed and malice that are the basic motivation behind ideas like this.
"Because I'm sure Microsoft will write a check to each person who was duped by a deceptive internet advertisement."
That's not the point of lawsuits like this. If Microsoft's action here results in a decrease in spam (and therefore better service), that alone is a huge benefit to their customers.
Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).
OK, there are 2 identified CD's that won't play on certain systems, big deal. Nothing's perfect.
As far as the wild speculation about self-destructing DVDs and CDs, you either didn't read the article, or you are sensationalizing (as was done in the headline). Nowhere in the article were self-destructing DVDs or CDs mentioned, EVER! They were talking about downloadable music files that could only be played a few times before rendering themselves useless.
The RIAA still hasn't come out with anything worth trying yet, but stop distorting the facts just for the sake of making the RIAA look more Evil(tm).
"For example you will be in hellish hot water as a paper when you just print accusations without even giving the accused so much as a chance to answer to those allegations."
Where did you hear that one? Ever read the Enquirer?
Probably for the same reason why we can't 'get' one standard Linux distribution, or one standard desktop environment. These different flavors essentially do the same thing, but different people just like to do things a little differently. That's not a bad thing, and to a large extent, it encourages innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
So are you saying that jack-booted thugs are forcing you to install and use Windows? Or are you suggesting that quality alternatives to windows like Linux and *BSD are failures?
I'm sorry, but someone had to say it!
No, it's supposed to reward people for carpooling and reducing traffic congestion. Unless you're suggesting that my SUV will get better mileage in the HOV lane ;)
That's exactly what I was talking about.
It is NOT illegal to make a copy of something you own for your own personal use, so please don't cite that as an example of how unfair our copyright laws are.
Care to 'share' your credit card information with me? Information wants to be free, doesn't it?
Honestly, I don't know why the NYT would run an article about some angry douchebag who plays video games and is sorely lacking in social interaction skills. Must have been a slow news day.
There is quite a collection out there of various mods and 'siegelets' to choose from.
"and does Microsoft work with them to improve the game?"
That I couldn't tell you, other than that I know MS hasn't released a modpack with the most popular user contributions.
Microsoft provided a mod tool for their popular Dungeon Siege game, and many new modifications and additional content has been created by users. Does that make it Open Source? Hardly (comon, this is Microsoft we're talking about).
I'm afraid a modification tool is a far cry from Open Source (don't tell me they let you download the source code of NWN, did they?).
If the artists don't understand the terms of the contract they are signing, that's their own damn fault.
"I gotta ask... is there a chance you're motivated by a job in the industry?"
No, my job has nothing to do with the music industry.
"you've apparently fallen for the brainwashing that we have to pay the industry to enjoy the arts"
Incorrect, though I've apparently fallen for the absurd notion that artists should be compensated for their contributions. If the artists prefer to get screwed by the RIAA, that's their fault. There are plenty of other (and dare I say smarter) artists out there performing independent of RIAA masters.
"You're poisoning the well and any effort is worth silencing you"
No need to be nasty here, I'm trying to have a civil discussion, and apparently you'd rather silence me than prove me wrong.
"-- The RIAA members routinely force artists to sign contracts that are unfair (in my opinion)
You're absolutely right, that's YOUR opinion. The fact that there are thousands of bands and artists lining up to get a contract suggests your opinion is wrong.
The RIAA members routinely practice accounting in a way that deprives the artists of (in my opinion) what little royalties they're allowed after item 1 is done with them
Again, your opinion. If the artists feel they are being unfairly compensated, they can do as Pearl Jam did and not persue another contract.
As for the rest of your rant, wipe the froth from your mouth and take a deep breath. You're sounding like JonKatz!
Again, do I think the RIAA is good? Not really (it doesn't affect my much though because I have little intrest in today's music). Do I think their business model is outdated? You bet! But the people who illegally share music has to accept a portion of the blame for ridiculous laws such as the DMCA. If they didn't illegally copy music, there would never have been an perceived (by the RIAA) need for such overreaching laws.
I think that concepts like Apple's iTunes will go a long way in providing a legal and convenient way for customers to obtain the music they want. But there will always be a significant population that believes they are entitled to free music, and will use just about anything to justify their position.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about! You don't believe what their representatives say, so you simply fill in the blank with what you think is consistent with your opinion of them.
If you know where to legally get 80 gigs of music for $1.25, than you certainly know something I don't.
Newsflash: People who illegally copy music ARE criminals!
And how can you call them customers when they aren't buying the music?
First of all, these people aren't 'swapping' anything. That implies a trade where one item (or file) is exchanged for another one, with an implied transfer of ownership. They are COPYING music from one another, not trading it (and trading CDs is NOT illegal, contrary to what some seem to believe).
And that brings me to rant #2. It's easy to regard the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when you read (and believe) some of the things people claim the RIAA believes/practices. People here have claimed that the RIAA wants such things as making individual backups of personal CDs, and playing said backups on their computer illegal, and that is simply not true! People make these claims without providing a shred of evidence to back up their assertions. They might as well be accusing Hillary Rosen of violating young children, with as much proof they base their statements on.
Please read this article which clarifies many of the misconceptions about the RIAA's position on fair usage. I think some of you will be very surprised (I know I was).
Is the RIAA perfect? Not even close. But putting words into their mouth for the sake of tricking people into thinking you know something they don't is no way to conduct an honest and meaningful discussion.
Creating a similar look-and-feel to the original, and using the actual code from the original are two very different things.
So is your beef with Microsoft only, or the entire commercial software industry?
Ironically, Microsoft is probably the only company that would be able to afford to pay the 10%. A goodly portion of the already-fragile software industry would go belly-up if Uncle Sam were to take 10% off of their bottom line.
And especially in this economy/job market, that would be a really bad thing. Please think through the consequences of the greed and malice that are the basic motivation behind ideas like this.
I don't know about you, but I'll take a real one instead!
That's not the point of lawsuits like this. If Microsoft's action here results in a decrease in spam (and therefore better service), that alone is a huge benefit to their customers.
Any ISP that tries to reduce spam for its customers should be praised, not just the ones that you perceive as Good(tm).
As far as the wild speculation about self-destructing DVDs and CDs, you either didn't read the article, or you are sensationalizing (as was done in the headline). Nowhere in the article were self-destructing DVDs or CDs mentioned, EVER! They were talking about downloadable music files that could only be played a few times before rendering themselves useless.
The RIAA still hasn't come out with anything worth trying yet, but stop distorting the facts just for the sake of making the RIAA look more Evil(tm).
Thanks Steve! Now I have a whole new goal for when I present my next project pitch to the captains and commanders I work with!
You're new here, aren't you?
Who wants to put some money down on a wager that the first significant merger of biology and computers will be accomplished by the pr0n industry?
Where did you hear that one? Ever read the Enquirer?
Probably for the same reason why we can't 'get' one standard Linux distribution, or one standard desktop environment. These different flavors essentially do the same thing, but different people just like to do things a little differently. That's not a bad thing, and to a large extent, it encourages innovation.