Microsoft bankroll to fight Linux:___$15,000,000.00
Sun money to swat the SCO mosquito:_____$299,996.50
Money Darl swiped from the coffee
fund whilst no one was watching:______________$3.50
Total amount of cash extorted/raped:_$15,300,000.00
The look on SCO executive's faces when they learn their tactics have ultimately bankrupted them:
No, I want the copyright laws changed back to the way they were before the 100 year lifetimes and worst of all, corporations being able to own the copyright to a creative work. I'm all for a corporation being able to own a patent but copyrights should belong to the artists that create the work, never to the company that distributes it.
What about movies or other works created from a combined team of artists? Does each own a portion of the copyright? Logistically, how would one manage the distribution rights of the resulting work? While I partially share your loathing of the insidious use of copyright wrought by some companies, it is, like most things, not a black and white issue.
To his credit, the guy is asking for feedback. This is what I sent him:
Your proposed "Internet Penalties Plan" is flawed in several aspects.
First, the concept of penalizing the victim of a crime, in this case the user of poorly written software, is morally and economically wrong beyond words. Have you ever taken a moment to read the EULAs to most software you install and run every day? The software industry dodges responsibility for its actions like no other industry ever could. If auto manufacturers forced consumers to sell away their rights in the event of neglect or incompetence on the part of the manufacturer, they'd be faced with several class action law suits. Yet when a analogous situation happens with software companies, we blame the customer? Perhaps it is the customer's fault . . . for letting the industry get away with such crimes. Ultimately, the poor design of software is too blame, specifically on the technical and user levels. Technical flaws allow the exploits to exist in the first place. Flaws at the user level keep the masses largely and, in most cases, inescapably ignorant of the problem and of any means to fix it. If software companies were held responsible for their actions, there'd be better software, and with better software we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Secondly, even if what you propose weren't horribly immoral, it would still be technically impractical. You'd like to levy fines against people who unknowingly contribute to malicious computer attack. How do you propose on identifying those "responsible"? IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other means of computer identification can and will always be forged. Now, instead of crippling a company's network, all an attacker has to do is trick "the system" into thinking the company is the unknowing accomplice in another attack, thus incurring financial and legal woes for that company. Any proposal too trusting of technology will inevitably be reduced to yet another tool by those who would initiate such malicious attacks. Of course, there's also the issue of logistics, in that it would be virtually impossible to successfully levy all fines imposed since a large portion of these "unknowing" conspirators would lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
Overall, while I understand your logic, I believe you to be on the wrong track. Your proposal is fundamentally flawed and ultimately counterproductive.
The walk-through screen, despite a surge in interest, may also fail... The whole general display industry is just littered with dead bodies everywhere, and success stories, too.
Whoa there! Back-up. How many dead bodies? Like, a lot? Can you see the ground, or do you need to dig through them to get to the success stories?
Yes, that should be interesting. However, I'm no expert on California's laws but if Davis feels any indication of losing, especially to a Republican, couldn't he succeed to his deputy Governor, to whom the recall does not apply?
I've noticed that Zdnet seems to mirror most of Cnet's content. Is there are major difference between the two sites? Or do they just get a lot of their content from the same source?
There was a time when I used to value the product reviews from both sites. However, I now view both sites as little more than an advertising platform for major technology manufacturers, not that that can't be one of their functions, but that they often seem to sacrifice objectivity due to this.
No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.
At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.
While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends.
Because when faced with the choice of downloading untold numbers of movies, music, or expensive software like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office, the humble file trader always opts for that hot new copy of Outlook Express...?!
Watch out for this John Leland guy. He's in the know.
...but the programmers have entirely shifted over to MSVC/Win32 platforms, to speed up the release cycle and avoid cross-platform issues. The game is based entirely on DirectX libraries, so doing other platforms wouldn't be an easy task. It's hard enough to find competent programmers at all in Spokane, let alone ones that can write cross-platform 3D games.
Yes, because if Microsoft's known for anything, it's their devotion to illiminating "cross-platform issues" (don't you hate those).
If only there was some sort of industry standard API for cross platform 3D graphics. Some sort of "open" API. An API for a Graphics Library. An Open Graphics Library, or "OpenGL" if you will. But even if such a crazy API did exist, what are the odds that anyone would know how to use it? Especially in a techless backwater like Washington state?
I'm surprised at how many "good ridance, the jerk shouldn't break the law" posts I've seen, especially when breaking and entering, in the context of computer security, is defined so vaguely. From the context of the article it sounds like the hack in question, of the New York Times, involved accessing data by "anyone capable of properly configuring their Web browser." If someone accesses a page on your website that you didn't mean for them to see, heh, they can't read your mind. And, might I add, the metaphors of someone "breaking" into your house or car don't quite fit. The nytimes.com is a huge publically accessible website (duh). A more appropriate metaphor would be someone going into a department store and walking into a room meant for, but not listed as, authorized personel only. If he had used some social engineering to obtain passwords, exploited a software bug, or used a trojan or virus to hack the NYTimes, I'd agree that the guy is at fault, but using your web browser to access data wasn't illegal the last time I checked.
that whenever a mechanism capable of speech crops up, there's an unending supply of people bent on getting it to recite vulgarities. I knew a freshman in college who had a blast with one of those Bonsai Buddy talking desktop programs. Who knew someone could derive so much joy from being cursed out by a cyber monkey?
...IBM is indeed guilty of what SCO claims? McBride makes a good point in that IBM has made no motions a company would normally make if it thought this case was frivilous. Naturally, I understand/. can be a somewhat jaded forum, but are we that confident in our legal system that we assume the impossibility of injustice?
Next, they'll start suing people because they don't buy their crappy products.
Isn't that kinda the case already? Afterall, it's most likely the case that most of the copyright infringers they're suing did not buy their crappy products?
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I doubt that all cartoonists are capable of making a life like drawing of something.
You'd be surprised. I've been drawing for the vast majority of my life, and, while I don't exactly agree with the parent, the "basics" taught through the draw-what-you-see mentality are definitively useful in most areas of graphic arts. That said, I personally find life drawing to be one of the most least-interesting ways to teach drawing. Cartooning relates to a lot of people stylistically because it symbolizes ideas through the emphasis of prominent details recognizable by almost everyone. So of course, in order to do this effectively, one usually needs to know what the world looks like. Back in my art school days, pretty much all I did was "life like drawing" and it bored me to hell. I was reasonably talented, but I almost gave up drawing entirely because I just didn't see the point. Then I discovered the world of cartooning and illustration and, for some reason, found myself attracted to this idea of drawing what you imagine, not what you see. However, I found the lessons taught in life drawing classes to be invaluable. After all, it's easier to recreate or iconify a subject once you're familiar with its photographic details. What irritates me is this baseless idea that drawing photo realistically is the "right" way to draw. It's rarely about photorealism, but about the message you're trying to express.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
That seems like a fairly short-sighted opinion. If all the work that went into Linux was not available at no cost to competitors you would never had even gotten the chance to use, and hack, Linux yourself. Think of it like a marriage. You give and take, both (hopefully) ending up better in the end.
Kinley Dorji, editor of Kuensel (motto: That The Nation Shall Be Informed), warns that Bhutan's ruling elite is out of touch. "We pride ourselves in being academic and sophisticated, but we are also a very naive kingdom that does not yet fully understand the outside world. The government underestimated how aggressively channels like Star market themselves, how little they seem to care about programming, how virulent the message of the advertisers is."
Not to mention that breaking a law is illegal, whether you hurt some one or not.
Having been astounded upon first reading this, I contacted my State Representative and several legal aides, who, after hours of interpretation of local legal statutes confirmed that it was indeed illegal to break laws. Thanks for your insight. I'm glad we got this cleared up.
Perhaps this is somewhat redundant, but how exactly do you patent the use of the pop-up ad? Isn't a pop-up a feature of the browser/javascript/html? Did he write the code that browsers use to create a pop-up? The article mentions that the patent covers "computer code" that can âoeinteract with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions". Which browser? What code? Can you really get a patent for writing window.open() in javascript?
The article notes the patent was filed in 1998, however, I find it hard to believe there were no popups prior to 1998.
On the other hand, I suppose the issue is somewhat moot, since I usually go out of my way to avoid buying anything I see advertised via popup. I don't think I'm alone on this.
However, I'm actually interested in seeing what he's trying to patent that creates "audio ads that cannot be turned off". Does it involve him coming to my house and making sure I keep my speakers turned on?
Software will not be able to be resold. If you need new software, you will have to buy a new copy from some evil company. This will ensure you get the highest quality software that will ensure the maximum life of your computer. A lawyer will prevent manual reselling.
I'll second that. Unfortunately, Miyazaki is getting on in his years and these films are beginning to become quite a physical burden. Back when Mononoke Hime was released, it was rumored that it would be his last film. I was pleasantly surprised to see that rumor dispelled, at least temporarily, with the release of Spirited Away. Personally, I think much more preasure should be put towards releasing or re-releasing his earlier films.
You dismis the parent's point too quickly. He emphasizes the importance on "ease of use". You, on the other hand, seem to emphasize "efficiency of function". Both are immensely important. Sometimes one is preferred at the expense of the other. Unix and its derivatives have traditionally focussed on the later concern. The relative successes of Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, Lycoris, and others in recent years at addressing "ease of use" is the kind of evolution that makes Linux so promising and is undeniable progress. This is the point the parent was trying to emphasize.
Slackware is not a "throwback" distro. It is all about simplicity.
I'm sure Slack is a fine distribution and I wish it and its developers well, but it needs to be seen in a specific context in order to be fully appreciated.
Believe it or not, some people don't WANT to use lots of GUI stuff, and they don't WANT everything set up for them from the start. Slackware is great for building a system that does what YOU want, and ONLY what you want.
This is relative. Believe it or not, some people don't WANT to use lots of command-line stuff, and they don't WANT rip their hair out configuring every piece of hardware.
It also does so while being more UNIXy than other distributions, which is either a feature or a curse depending on your point of view.
I agree completely.
And IMO, the installer is not hard to use. It's very straightforward and offers details that make it pretty simple to get things set up the way you want. Okay, it's not going to go through and auto detect your sound card for you, and it's not going to resize your partitions. But honestly that's not what Slackware is for. It's about being simple, clean, and full featured (or not, as you desire).
Now let me get this straight. Because Slackware is "simple" and "let's you do what you want" it doesn't need to make hardware configuration easier? This argument always confuses me. "Doing what YOU want" usually refers to the software one installs and administers. So how does auto-configuring your monitor, network card, or other piece of hardware stop you from compiling source, configuring text files, or otherwise "doing what you want"?
There is without doubt elitism in the Slackware community, but that is not what Slack is all about.
Don't take this the wrong way (read: with a bit of humor) but Slackware doesn't seem to be about a lot of things.
And for the record I have never seen someone use the term "Redhate". If they did, they still wouldn't be half as trollish as you, my friend.
Again, this is relative to one's opinion. Just try not to confuse simplicity or "efficiency of function" with "ease of use".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a cyborg you insensitive clod!
It's a trap!
</admiral akbar voice>
Microsoft bankroll to fight Linux:___$15,000,000.00
Sun money to swat the SCO mosquito:_____$299,996.50
Money Darl swiped from the coffee fund whilst no one was watching:______________$3.50
Total amount of cash extorted/raped:_$15,300,000.00
The look on SCO executive's faces when they learn their tactics have ultimately bankrupted them:
Priceless
No, I want the copyright laws changed back to the way they were before the 100 year lifetimes and worst of all, corporations being able to own the copyright to a creative work. I'm all for a corporation being able to own a patent but copyrights should belong to the artists that create the work, never to the company that distributes it.
What about movies or other works created from a combined team of artists? Does each own a portion of the copyright? Logistically, how would one manage the distribution rights of the resulting work? While I partially share your loathing of the insidious use of copyright wrought by some companies, it is, like most things, not a black and white issue.
To his credit, the guy is asking for feedback. This is what I sent him:
Your proposed "Internet Penalties Plan" is flawed in several aspects.
First, the concept of penalizing the victim of a crime, in this case the user of poorly written software, is morally and economically wrong beyond words. Have you ever taken a moment to read the EULAs to most software you install and run every day? The software industry dodges responsibility for its actions like no other industry ever could. If auto manufacturers forced consumers to sell away their rights in the event of neglect or incompetence on the part of the manufacturer, they'd be faced with several class action law suits. Yet when a analogous situation happens with software companies, we blame the customer? Perhaps it is the customer's fault . . . for letting the industry get away with such crimes. Ultimately, the poor design of software is too blame, specifically on the technical and user levels. Technical flaws allow the exploits to exist in the first place. Flaws at the user level keep the masses largely and, in most cases, inescapably ignorant of the problem and of any means to fix it. If software companies were held responsible for their actions, there'd be better software, and with better software we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Secondly, even if what you propose weren't horribly immoral, it would still be technically impractical. You'd like to levy fines against people who unknowingly contribute to malicious computer attack. How do you propose on identifying those "responsible"? IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other means of computer identification can and will always be forged. Now, instead of crippling a company's network, all an attacker has to do is trick "the system" into thinking the company is the unknowing accomplice in another attack, thus incurring financial and legal woes for that company. Any proposal too trusting of technology will inevitably be reduced to yet another tool by those who would initiate such malicious attacks. Of course, there's also the issue of logistics, in that it would be virtually impossible to successfully levy all fines imposed since a large portion of these "unknowing" conspirators would lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States.
Overall, while I understand your logic, I believe you to be on the wrong track. Your proposal is fundamentally flawed and ultimately counterproductive.
Sincerely,
The walk-through screen, despite a surge in interest, may also fail ... The whole general display industry is just littered with dead bodies everywhere, and success stories, too.
Whoa there! Back-up. How many dead bodies? Like, a lot? Can you see the ground, or do you need to dig through them to get to the success stories?
Yes, that should be interesting. However, I'm no expert on California's laws but if Davis feels any indication of losing, especially to a Republican, couldn't he succeed to his deputy Governor, to whom the recall does not apply?
I've noticed that Zdnet seems to mirror most of Cnet's content. Is there are major difference between the two sites? Or do they just get a lot of their content from the same source?
There was a time when I used to value the product reviews from both sites. However, I now view both sites as little more than an advertising platform for major technology manufacturers, not that that can't be one of their functions, but that they often seem to sacrifice objectivity due to this.
No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.
At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.
While you're online, visit a blog with links to published movie gossip and use your pirated e-mail program to send tidbits to your hundred closest friends.
Because when faced with the choice of downloading untold numbers of movies, music, or expensive software like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office, the humble file trader always opts for that hot new copy of Outlook Express...?!
Watch out for this John Leland guy. He's in the know.
intense debate rages over whether or not we should be required to have licenses in order to enter libraries, supermarkets, or convenience stores.
Call me crazy, but doesn't regulating who has the "right" to access the internet defeat the purpose of its decentralized, unregulated design?
Yes, because if Microsoft's known for anything, it's their devotion to illiminating "cross-platform issues" (don't you hate those).
If only there was some sort of industry standard API for cross platform 3D graphics. Some sort of "open" API. An API for a Graphics Library. An Open Graphics Library, or "OpenGL" if you will. But even if such a crazy API did exist, what are the odds that anyone would know how to use it? Especially in a techless backwater like Washington state?
I'm surprised at how many "good ridance, the jerk shouldn't break the law" posts I've seen, especially when breaking and entering, in the context of computer security, is defined so vaguely. From the context of the article it sounds like the hack in question, of the New York Times, involved accessing data by "anyone capable of properly configuring their Web browser." If someone accesses a page on your website that you didn't mean for them to see, heh, they can't read your mind. And, might I add, the metaphors of someone "breaking" into your house or car don't quite fit. The nytimes.com is a huge publically accessible website (duh). A more appropriate metaphor would be someone going into a department store and walking into a room meant for, but not listed as, authorized personel only. If he had used some social engineering to obtain passwords, exploited a software bug, or used a trojan or virus to hack the NYTimes, I'd agree that the guy is at fault, but using your web browser to access data wasn't illegal the last time I checked.
that whenever a mechanism capable of speech crops up, there's an unending supply of people bent on getting it to recite vulgarities. I knew a freshman in college who had a blast with one of those Bonsai Buddy talking desktop programs. Who knew someone could derive so much joy from being cursed out by a cyber monkey?
...IBM is indeed guilty of what SCO claims? McBride makes a good point in that IBM has made no motions a company would normally make if it thought this case was frivilous. Naturally, I understand /. can be a somewhat jaded forum, but are we that confident in our legal system that we assume the impossibility of injustice?
Next, they'll start suing people because they don't buy their crappy products.
Isn't that kinda the case already? Afterall, it's most likely the case that most of the copyright infringers they're suing did not buy their crappy products?
Do you have any evidence to back that up? I doubt that all cartoonists are capable of making a life like drawing of something.
You'd be surprised. I've been drawing for the vast majority of my life, and, while I don't exactly agree with the parent, the "basics" taught through the draw-what-you-see mentality are definitively useful in most areas of graphic arts. That said, I personally find life drawing to be one of the most least-interesting ways to teach drawing. Cartooning relates to a lot of people stylistically because it symbolizes ideas through the emphasis of prominent details recognizable by almost everyone. So of course, in order to do this effectively, one usually needs to know what the world looks like. Back in my art school days, pretty much all I did was "life like drawing" and it bored me to hell. I was reasonably talented, but I almost gave up drawing entirely because I just didn't see the point. Then I discovered the world of cartooning and illustration and, for some reason, found myself attracted to this idea of drawing what you imagine, not what you see. However, I found the lessons taught in life drawing classes to be invaluable. After all, it's easier to recreate or iconify a subject once you're familiar with its photographic details. What irritates me is this baseless idea that drawing photo realistically is the "right" way to draw. It's rarely about photorealism, but about the message you're trying to express.
So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.
That seems like a fairly short-sighted opinion. If all the work that went into Linux was not available at no cost to competitors you would never had even gotten the chance to use, and hack, Linux yourself. Think of it like a marriage. You give and take, both (hopefully) ending up better in the end.
Kinley Dorji, editor of Kuensel (motto: That The Nation Shall Be Informed), warns that Bhutan's ruling elite is out of touch. "We pride ourselves in being academic and sophisticated, but we are also a very naive kingdom that does not yet fully understand the outside world. The government underestimated how aggressively channels like Star market themselves, how little they seem to care about programming, how virulent the message of the advertisers is."
Kinda sums everything up quite nicely.
Not to mention that breaking a law is illegal, whether you hurt some one or not.
Having been astounded upon first reading this, I contacted my State Representative and several legal aides, who, after hours of interpretation of local legal statutes confirmed that it was indeed illegal to break laws. Thanks for your insight. I'm glad we got this cleared up.
Did anyone else first read the title as "Low Cost Cinema Through Dynamic Piracy"?
Perhaps this is somewhat redundant, but how exactly do you patent the use of the pop-up ad? Isn't a pop-up a feature of the browser/javascript/html? Did he write the code that browsers use to create a pop-up? The article mentions that the patent covers "computer code" that can âoeinteract with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions". Which browser? What code? Can you really get a patent for writing window.open() in javascript?
The article notes the patent was filed in 1998, however, I find it hard to believe there were no popups prior to 1998.
On the other hand, I suppose the issue is somewhat moot, since I usually go out of my way to avoid buying anything I see advertised via popup. I don't think I'm alone on this.
However, I'm actually interested in seeing what he's trying to patent that creates "audio ads that cannot be turned off". Does it involve him coming to my house and making sure I keep my speakers turned on?
Or to use a corollary closer to home:
Software will not be able to be resold. If you need new software, you will have to buy a new copy from some evil company. This will ensure you get the highest quality software that will ensure the maximum life of your computer. A lawyer will prevent manual reselling.
Sorry if this was offtopic.
I'll second that. Unfortunately, Miyazaki is getting on in his years and these films are beginning to become quite a physical burden. Back when Mononoke Hime was released, it was rumored that it would be his last film. I was pleasantly surprised to see that rumor dispelled, at least temporarily, with the release of Spirited Away. Personally, I think much more preasure should be put towards releasing or re-releasing his earlier films.
This is such a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
You dismis the parent's point too quickly. He emphasizes the importance on "ease of use". You, on the other hand, seem to emphasize "efficiency of function". Both are immensely important. Sometimes one is preferred at the expense of the other. Unix and its derivatives have traditionally focussed on the later concern. The relative successes of Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, Lycoris, and others in recent years at addressing "ease of use" is the kind of evolution that makes Linux so promising and is undeniable progress. This is the point the parent was trying to emphasize.
Slackware is not a "throwback" distro. It is all about simplicity.
I'm sure Slack is a fine distribution and I wish it and its developers well, but it needs to be seen in a specific context in order to be fully appreciated.
Believe it or not, some people don't WANT to use lots of GUI stuff, and they don't WANT everything set up for them from the start. Slackware is great for building a system that does what YOU want, and ONLY what you want.
This is relative. Believe it or not, some people don't WANT to use lots of command-line stuff, and they don't WANT rip their hair out configuring every piece of hardware.
It also does so while being more UNIXy than other distributions, which is either a feature or a curse depending on your point of view.
I agree completely.
And IMO, the installer is not hard to use. It's very straightforward and offers details that make it pretty simple to get things set up the way you want. Okay, it's not going to go through and auto detect your sound card for you, and it's not going to resize your partitions. But honestly that's not what Slackware is for. It's about being simple, clean, and full featured (or not, as you desire).
Now let me get this straight. Because Slackware is "simple" and "let's you do what you want" it doesn't need to make hardware configuration easier? This argument always confuses me. "Doing what YOU want" usually refers to the software one installs and administers. So how does auto-configuring your monitor, network card, or other piece of hardware stop you from compiling source, configuring text files, or otherwise "doing what you want"?
There is without doubt elitism in the Slackware community, but that is not what Slack is all about.
Don't take this the wrong way (read: with a bit of humor) but Slackware doesn't seem to be about a lot of things.
And for the record I have never seen someone use the term "Redhate". If they did, they still wouldn't be half as trollish as you, my friend.
Again, this is relative to one's opinion. Just try not to confuse simplicity or "efficiency of function" with "ease of use".