..article, but I still think Firefox kicks the crap out of IE, LOL.
I've always felt that an OS or browser are just parts of a toolbox; however, I can see how easy it is to become attached emotionally to software so that you can become subjective.
People complain incessently about how unstable Windows OSes are, when I've had Win2k boxes that were up FOR YEARS without a crash, and I've had Mandrake and Slack installs that crash periodically.
Then again, people complain incessently about the difficulty in installing Linux on modern hardware and I've had easier times configuring SATA under Mandrake and Slack than WS2003.
Water is wet, women have secrets, Operating Systems have problems...
Let's cover the lead up to this particular post of yours.
(1)Several posters, including yourself, attempt to assert that people have traditionally been able to do whatever they wanted with the things they have purchased.
(2)I provide an example list of many common things which shows that item #1 is a ridiculous broad assertion.
(3)You get on a side tangent about one example from that list, books. You provide links to a URL to support the ridiculous assertion that EULAs in books are not enforceable, when the link is actually about how somebody tried to sue under the copyright act in order to preclude someone from doing something unrelated to copyright - which has nothing to do with EULAs at all. Of course the whole point of the list is to show that many consumer items have for many years had restrictions on their use, but you missed that and focused on something else...)
(4)I point out the problem with your "support" and proceed to try and point out to you that your own statements support my argument that these "cherished freedoms" regarding consumer goods are a fantasy.
(5)You reply that I'm agreeing with your stupidity because I concur that copyright laws restrict users from using a product however they desire.
Funny, you should have realized last post that you're agreeing with me that many products have been restricted for a long time and that, as I stated in my original post, the original poster is acting like a drama queen when referring to "cherished freedoms."
Of course, due to historical precedent, I have to presume that you've missed all of this.
"says only that I'm not allowed to "reproduce" it except for reviews"
*BANG*
I hope your realize that the statement you made above quite clearly and irrevocably makes clear to you that you DO NOT have the right to do what you want with a book that you purchase.
To try to explain this to you even more pedantically, imagine that you purchased a book, and there was some device which you could not circumvent without difficulty which prevented you from making photocopies of the book, or scans, or viewing the book through another medium (such as a video camera.) The device would be the equivalent of DRM, but for books. The same restrictions mentioned in the first few pages of the book except enforced. This is what DRM is today.
DRM only enforces the very same limitations which have been stipulated previously.
I can't believe you still can't see that.
You don't like it, I can understand that. I don't particularly like it, but the only thing that has changed in regards to your "rights" is that the same things you've been cognizant of before are being enforced.
I'm sorry, but that is your basic misunderstanding. DRM is intended to do one thing, enforce the preservation of the content owner's rights. It doesn't have anything to do with your rights at all because you've forgotten that you have not been allowed to copy this media arbitrarily at any point over the last 30 years. The problem for end users is that this is now being 'enforced.' This 'enforcement' then brings to light issues that were never broached before because people just copied stuff however they pleased (improperly.)
Sellers DO place restrictions on using a book. Try reading the inside cover.
BTW, try reading your link to the Supreme Court ruling. It is a dismissal of the complaintant because they linked the restriction to copyright law and the restriction was a price of resell restriction. It has nothing to do with your rather convenient "Sellers cannot place restrictions on using a book" LOL.
DRM isn't about your rights, but it does affect what you perceive to be your rights. You didn't have the right to copy DVD and VHS types arbitrarily at any time before, now it is just being enforced.
The issue really is "what is the granular detail concerning what does or does not consitute fair usage of a product."
First, it is about the rights of the content producers. They are restricting the usage of the products THEY are producing. As a result of this, people (like yourself) feel that THEIR rights are being restricted.
This is not the case at all. You are under no obligation to purchase these products. When you purchase them you implicitly and explicitly accepting the limitations of the products usage. Nobody is changing the usage rights of something you bought previously.
As for "Normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do whatever they want with it", that's total baloney.
What are you not allowed to do with US currency? What are the restrictions to operating a motor vehicle? What are the restrictions on using headphones in an automobile? What are the restrictions on the usage of prescription drugs? What are the restrictions on buying and selling stocks and bonds? What are the restrictions of handgun ownership? What are the restrictions on the purchase of demolitions? What are the restrictions on buying a book? What are the restrictions on buying distilling equipment?
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
If you're objective about the situation you'll quickly realize that MANY items you 'purchase' have restrictions as to what you can do with them whether do to copyrights, safety, or law enforcement infringements.
How is being anti digital RIGHTS management cherishing freedom? Maybe you mean to say "freedom to do whatever you want with things you spend money on." I guess we should be lobbying to be able to burn money next, oops, you don't really own your money.
Not "what CAN you use it for legitimately" but "what ARE you using it for legitimately."
Just curious really. Personally, I don't have much legitimate stuff to share with random people on the internet that suggests the use of p2p code, but I sure love the torrent:).
I'm sorry but that's not what my analogy says at all. The quarters example was a joke on the 'change my dollars into' analogy.
If you'd bothered to read what I had initially replied to you'd see that the person was complaining that ownership suggested the inviolate will to do with it whatever you wished. Since that is not true of many non DRM related items (such as money in this case) it was fallacious.
Somehow you've turned this into a comparison of turning dollars into coins and iTunes DRM'd tracks into something else.
That's not point at all.
In any case, to take your analogy apart (easily) you compare changing dollars into coins with the inability (your belief) that you can't do the same thing with iTunes tracks.
You CAN turn your iTunes tracks into other formats LEGALLY. Just like you can turn your dollar into quarters.
The poor analogy is yours. You're asserting that a unit of currency and a produced good are the same. My analogy only deals with the fact that their producting/copying/distribution are controlled.
As for your usage scenarios, they don't apply because (using your example against you) I can play my iTunes songs throughout my house via my home entertainment system, I can take my iTunes songs with me on my iPod, I can burn them to CD and take them anywhere. "So now, tell me how" to get my dollar to work in a video arcade machine? Oh, wait, you can't, you must do something else with it first. Just like with your iTunes songs.
Don't blame Apple for the fact that TiVo hasn't made a deal with them to support their format, or that Treo hasn't.
Don't act like you've no options with your iTunes songs either, but I can perfectly legally burn mine to disc. Surely you can as well.
Are you suggesting that analog copy protection was a realistic and affordable possibility for the music industry prior to the release of compact discs? LOL.
First, you're asserting that ALL copyright laws are unfair and draconian. They're not.
Second, you're countermanding your own comparison when you say (1)that it is in the public interest that nobody is allowed to counterfeit money (not just the government's interest) and then (2)that it isn't in the public's interest to prevent you from stealing music (your example.) That's non-sensical. You are stealing money from specific types of people when you counterfeit money, you are also stealing money from specific types of people when you counterfeit music. Taken further, you do not affect inflation with counterfeiting, you simply cheat the people you give the money to, ergo it is not in the public interest anymore than it is when you steal music (again, your example.)
Third, 'money has a tangible value' is an oxymoron. A music CD HAS a tangible value.
Re:Grew up with CD's and LaserDiscs, can't accept
on
When Would You Accept DRM?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No offense but the reason there wasn't copy protection on CDs when you "grew up" wasn't because it was some ridiculous golden age of fair play but because it was extraordinarily difficult for you to do so.
Guess when copy protection in the music industry started to become an issue...? Right when CD Burners became affordable.
Let's see... Birthday parties where they hired entertainment (there was a BIZARRO clown one time), Dim Sum service once a month (it was really crappy Dim Sum, I mean, how could it be good if you had to cart it around town?), Yoga classes in one of the conference rooms, an aborted attempt at a company sponsored sailing club.
It was as if we had a tour director on the Liedo (sp?) deck... LOL.
A gilded prison, a happy worker does not make...
on
Inside Look at Pixar HQ
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No offense, and I'm sure that much of the coolness of Pixar emanates from the creativity of the people who work there and the laxity of the 'corporate culture'; however, unless you work there you shouldn't presume that it is 'fun' because of the workplace. It certainly APPEARS to be a fun place to work;).
I've worked in startups in old gymnasiums in the Mission District in San Fran and I've worked in plush corporate offices with EVERY amenity (massages, shoe shiners, crazy weird stuff...) and job satisfaction was related to the working space for no one at these two companies.
That being said, it certainly looks nice:). Makes it easier to empathize with children as an adult if you're not surround by grey cubicle walls, LOL.
Indeed, but maybe the script for Troy was fantastic... We'll probably never know. Of course, the idea of squishing 10+ years of war into a 2 hour movie is, by default, ludicrous.
...based browsing, it appears that security has become more of an issue in direct proportion. What security issues have come as a surprise for you? The growth of Mozilla specific exploits, the lack thereof? Et cetera.
Slashdot Mirror
..article, but I still think Firefox kicks the crap out of IE, LOL.
I've always felt that an OS or browser are just parts of a toolbox; however, I can see how easy it is to become attached emotionally to software so that you can become subjective.
People complain incessently about how unstable Windows OSes are, when I've had Win2k boxes that were up FOR YEARS without a crash, and I've had Mandrake and Slack installs that crash periodically.
Then again, people complain incessently about the difficulty in installing Linux on modern hardware and I've had easier times configuring SATA under Mandrake and Slack than WS2003.
Water is wet, women have secrets, Operating Systems have problems...
My lord you can be pedantic.
Are feigning obtuse stupidity or is it real?
Let's cover the lead up to this particular post of yours.
(1)Several posters, including yourself, attempt to assert that people have traditionally been able to do whatever they wanted with the things they have purchased.
(2)I provide an example list of many common things which shows that item #1 is a ridiculous broad assertion.
(3)You get on a side tangent about one example from that list, books. You provide links to a URL to support the ridiculous assertion that EULAs in books are not enforceable, when the link is actually about how somebody tried to sue under the copyright act in order to preclude someone from doing something unrelated to copyright - which has nothing to do with EULAs at all. Of course the whole point of the list is to show that many consumer items have for many years had restrictions on their use, but you missed that and focused on something else...)
(4)I point out the problem with your "support" and proceed to try and point out to you that your own statements support my argument that these "cherished freedoms" regarding consumer goods are a fantasy.
(5)You reply that I'm agreeing with your stupidity because I concur that copyright laws restrict users from using a product however they desire.
Funny, you should have realized last post that you're agreeing with me that many products have been restricted for a long time and that, as I stated in my original post, the original poster is acting like a drama queen when referring to "cherished freedoms."
Of course, due to historical precedent, I have to presume that you've missed all of this.
"says only that I'm not allowed to "reproduce" it except for reviews"
*BANG*
I hope your realize that the statement you made above quite clearly and irrevocably makes clear to you that you DO NOT have the right to do what you want with a book that you purchase.
To try to explain this to you even more pedantically, imagine that you purchased a book, and there was some device which you could not circumvent without difficulty which prevented you from making photocopies of the book, or scans, or viewing the book through another medium (such as a video camera.) The device would be the equivalent of DRM, but for books. The same restrictions mentioned in the first few pages of the book except enforced. This is what DRM is today.
DRM only enforces the very same limitations which have been stipulated previously.
I can't believe you still can't see that.
You don't like it, I can understand that. I don't particularly like it, but the only thing that has changed in regards to your "rights" is that the same things you've been cognizant of before are being enforced.
I'm sorry, but that is your basic misunderstanding. DRM is intended to do one thing, enforce the preservation of the content owner's rights. It doesn't have anything to do with your rights at all because you've forgotten that you have not been allowed to copy this media arbitrarily at any point over the last 30 years. The problem for end users is that this is now being 'enforced.' This 'enforcement' then brings to light issues that were never broached before because people just copied stuff however they pleased (improperly.)
Sellers DO place restrictions on using a book. Try reading the inside cover.
BTW, try reading your link to the Supreme Court ruling. It is a dismissal of the complaintant because they linked the restriction to copyright law and the restriction was a price of resell restriction. It has nothing to do with your rather convenient "Sellers cannot place restrictions on using a book" LOL.
DRM isn't about your rights, but it does affect what you perceive to be your rights. You didn't have the right to copy DVD and VHS types arbitrarily at any time before, now it is just being enforced.
The issue really is "what is the granular detail concerning what does or does not consitute fair usage of a product."
First, it is about the rights of the content producers. They are restricting the usage of the products THEY are producing. As a result of this, people (like yourself) feel that THEIR rights are being restricted.
This is not the case at all. You are under no obligation to purchase these products. When you purchase them you implicitly and explicitly accepting the limitations of the products usage. Nobody is changing the usage rights of something you bought previously.
As for "Normally, when a person buys something, they have the right to do whatever they want with it", that's total baloney.
What are you not allowed to do with US currency?
What are the restrictions to operating a motor vehicle?
What are the restrictions on using headphones in an automobile?
What are the restrictions on the usage of prescription drugs?
What are the restrictions on buying and selling stocks and bonds?
What are the restrictions of handgun ownership?
What are the restrictions on the purchase of demolitions?
What are the restrictions on buying a book?
What are the restrictions on buying distilling equipment?
Et cetera, ad nauseum.
If you're objective about the situation you'll quickly realize that MANY items you 'purchase' have restrictions as to what you can do with them whether do to copyrights, safety, or law enforcement infringements.
You mean naive? It is entirely about rights, you're so ignorant. The rights of the content owners, NOT your rights.
How is being anti digital RIGHTS management cherishing freedom? Maybe you mean to say "freedom to do whatever you want with things you spend money on." I guess we should be lobbying to be able to burn money next, oops, you don't really own your money.
...it for 'legitimately'?
:).
Not "what CAN you use it for legitimately" but "what ARE you using it for legitimately."
Just curious really. Personally, I don't have much legitimate stuff to share with random people on the internet that suggests the use of p2p code, but I sure love the torrent
I hope that makes you feel better :).
I'm sorry but that's not what my analogy says at all. The quarters example was a joke on the 'change my dollars into' analogy.
If you'd bothered to read what I had initially replied to you'd see that the person was complaining that ownership suggested the inviolate will to do with it whatever you wished. Since that is not true of many non DRM related items (such as money in this case) it was fallacious.
Somehow you've turned this into a comparison of turning dollars into coins and iTunes DRM'd tracks into something else.
That's not point at all.
In any case, to take your analogy apart (easily) you compare changing dollars into coins with the inability (your belief) that you can't do the same thing with iTunes tracks.
You CAN turn your iTunes tracks into other formats LEGALLY. Just like you can turn your dollar into quarters.
The poor analogy is yours. You're asserting that a unit of currency and a produced good are the same. My analogy only deals with the fact that their producting/copying/distribution are controlled.
As for your usage scenarios, they don't apply because (using your example against you) I can play my iTunes songs throughout my house via my home entertainment system, I can take my iTunes songs with me on my iPod, I can burn them to CD and take them anywhere. "So now, tell me how" to get my dollar to work in a video arcade machine? Oh, wait, you can't, you must do something else with it first. Just like with your iTunes songs.
Don't blame Apple for the fact that TiVo hasn't made a deal with them to support their format, or that Treo hasn't.
Don't act like you've no options with your iTunes songs either, but I can perfectly legally burn mine to disc. Surely you can as well.
Are you suggesting that analog copy protection was a realistic and affordable possibility for the music industry prior to the release of compact discs? LOL.
...issues.
I was very interested in hearing about the influx of Mozilla vulnerabilities and Mozilla's direction on security.
First, you're asserting that ALL copyright laws are unfair and draconian. They're not.
Second, you're countermanding your own comparison when you say (1)that it is in the public interest that nobody is allowed to counterfeit money (not just the government's interest) and then (2)that it isn't in the public's interest to prevent you from stealing music (your example.) That's non-sensical. You are stealing money from specific types of people when you counterfeit money, you are also stealing money from specific types of people when you counterfeit music. Taken further, you do not affect inflation with counterfeiting, you simply cheat the people you give the money to, ergo it is not in the public interest anymore than it is when you steal music (again, your example.)
Third, 'money has a tangible value' is an oxymoron. A music CD HAS a tangible value.
No offense but the reason there wasn't copy protection on CDs when you "grew up" wasn't because it was some ridiculous golden age of fair play but because it was extraordinarily difficult for you to do so.
Guess when copy protection in the music industry started to become an issue...? Right when CD Burners became affordable.
You, sir, are a genius... Are you good looking like I am as well? ;)
When you 'accepted' citizenship? I was born here. I didn't accept it.
In any case, how is your argument anything but support for my original reply? LOL.
You stipulate that to accept the benefits of a country's citizenship you must adhere to its laws.
Ergo, to accept the benefits of a product you must adhere to the legally applicable wishes of its producer.
I'm still trying to discern your point (being confused by the part about how you can counterfeit money when the OP is about DRM.)
...isn't really yours? You're not allowed to copy it. You're not allowed to do anything you want with it. Now why is that?
Before you dismiss the compairson, think about it.
Let's see... Birthday parties where they hired entertainment (there was a BIZARRO clown one time), Dim Sum service once a month (it was really crappy Dim Sum, I mean, how could it be good if you had to cart it around town?), Yoga classes in one of the conference rooms, an aborted attempt at a company sponsored sailing club.
It was as if we had a tour director on the Liedo (sp?) deck... LOL.
No offense, and I'm sure that much of the coolness of Pixar emanates from the creativity of the people who work there and the laxity of the 'corporate culture'; however, unless you work there you shouldn't presume that it is 'fun' because of the workplace. It certainly APPEARS to be a fun place to work ;).
:). Makes it easier to empathize with children as an adult if you're not surround by grey cubicle walls, LOL.
I've worked in startups in old gymnasiums in the Mission District in San Fran and I've worked in plush corporate offices with EVERY amenity (massages, shoe shiners, crazy weird stuff...) and job satisfaction was related to the working space for no one at these two companies.
That being said, it certainly looks nice
Indeed, but maybe the script for Troy was fantastic... We'll probably never know. Of course, the idea of squishing 10+ years of war into a 2 hour movie is, by default, ludicrous.
LOL, let's not even go there... I can only imagine how good movies ever actually get made ("Good movies? Are there any?")
...changed after it leaves the writer's hands.
"Well, gosh, with Troy under his belt, all my concerns about the movie sucking are straight out! *cough*"
- Rather a stupid thing to say when you realize that the director has far more influence on a movie than the script itself.
...based browsing, it appears that security has become more of an issue in direct proportion. What security issues have come as a surprise for you? The growth of Mozilla specific exploits, the lack thereof? Et cetera.
Read the blog countering his 'points', LOL.