Maybe I'm living in the past... my CD burner is 12x but you have no idea how frustrating it was to find an error telling me to go get a license for my music when I had just burned a CD a month ago (this whole incident was some time ago). And then reinstalling windows so many times (and I don't care what anyone says, installing windows takes me longer than Linux)
But if the post about Roxio licensing Windows CD burner is true, I have NO idea why I was blocked from burning CDs. They even told me to select an item from a menu that didn't even exist, so I knew it had to be something Windows was doing. Maybe it makes sense if WMP updated a dll which was used by my burning software (considering that this Roxio-Microsoft relationship is true).
On a side note, I didn't know cdrecord worked on Windows. cdrecord has always worked for me
Incidentally, I can burn music CDs on Windows 2000 only because I figured out which update blocks it: Windows Media Player. Honestly I didn't read the EULA, but basically now I won't install wmp 7.1 or later.
This was a frustrating experience for me as I had to reinstall Windows 2000 3 times in order to figure out what was going on (I thought it was hidden in some other updates).
Anyway, I guess now that I think about it, you're right in as far as this probably isn't a music copying issue as much as it is an attempt to do away with Roxio... under the guise of copyright protection it would be hard to punish.
... and Nero is an exception. I think this has to do with the dll files they are relying upon. Sorry but this is the direction things are going in, and yes I realize a lot of it has to do with the fact that MS would rather you use THEIR cd burning software in XP, but you don't think this has anything to do with RIAA?
You can burn things in Nero--good for you, but at least think before you post.
Unfortunately steps have been taken and are being taken to make sure most people cannot burn music files to CDR...
And really this has been the point to begin with--they don't care if some "technically savvy" people are able to trade music, but because the common stupid user can trade any music they want, they have to try to stop it. Basically if you use Linux of course YOU can burn music files... but have you tried burning music files on Windows?
I did, and so far they have at least blocked me from burning mp3 files to CD format through Windows--even when I used non-MS software. Basically the operating system blocked it by checking to see if the file was licensed first. This was particularly frustrating seeing as how I have mp3 files which I recorded myself... do I need software to create my own licenses for myself now?
Basically if only Linux users could trade or burn music, no one would care.
This has been the basic story/problem for linux and other operating systems from day one. This is absolutely nothing new--more software is written for windows. We even rightly make the claim that "our software is better written" but it really doesn't matter. Just like you said: people want to use the software which makes things easiet for them not only on the physical level of using the computer, but on social and business levels which require compatibility.
Open Office is only NOW making some ground with this. I'm sorry, I dont' mean to insult anyone but the GNU and KDE office packages really didn't cut it--they were always behind especially on their file conversions. And how long has Linux been around? You can't expect the common user to write documents with TeX. And for those of you who remember the days of Red Hat 5.2 or before, who was using Linux to write documents? I didn't know anyone.
The way I see it, people need to be developing more for Linux and not just in the gaming department. I think gaming should come last, actually because the return on the amount of work required is so low. Right now, I think Linux needs to concentrate on multimedia: movie file playback, codecs, mp3 players, DVD players, good sound card drivers. And all of this needs to be done WELL: interfaces should be easy to use, clean, attractive, the files played must not skip or be slow, or be difficult to see.
Sometimes I wonder why the courts don't just put SCO out of its misery...
I mean isn't it pretty apparent to everyone that these are some last rites? These are just theatrics as a last dying attempt in vengeance against their bane. I mean this makes SCO look really really awful as they writhe in agony, striking out as spitefully as they can at the IBM/Linux partnership.
I don't think anyone can take this whole charade seriously. I hope this abuse of the court system doesn't go unpunished. Has anyone ever considered how quickly things move along and get developed in the techological world? Does anyone see how grossly slow and inadequate the traditional court system is at handling things of this nature? With legal battles, appeals, loopholes, etc. by the time anyone wins a case they're looking at technology that older than dirt.
EXACTLY. More to the point, in the traditional system, a company has a distinct motive for stealing code--to make more money/gain market share. While I'm not saying Linux doesn't make money, there are some differences behind the philosophies and how this works.
With proprietary software, you don't see the code. If you steal code, you have a better chance of getting away with it AND you can be more competitive.
With open source software everyone gets to see what you've done! That's the rule! There is more motive to create your own code or use other open sourced code under this system than taking it illegally. Doing so is more harmful than good.
Do we really know how likely SCO's claims are to be true? Personally, I think that the Linux community is pretty proud of having "done it themselves" and doesn't want to use SCO's code at all. In fact, it's a very bad thing for the GPL if people put code under the GPL illegally.
The only way people will trust open source is to trust the open source developers. As more and more people are warming up to the idea that "free software isn't junk" the last thing needed is for consumers and companies to think that it was all done using someone else's code.
Actually, to "prove" it's copyrighted material does not require them to download the entire song or to listen to the entire song... even a small piece of the song is copyrighted.
Ideally yes... however, I'm glad to see that this is proving that the system is working to some extent. Even though the original idea was to create the laws the people wanted first, it's nice to know that the system of checks and balances is working fairly well even so many centuries from its inception.
Well I don't completely agree. A truck can be used for alot of things. If this file sharing system can be used for ANY type of file, then yes absolutely. If it can only be used for mp3 files, then no. The point is, you can't make a program that has the only purpose of transferring files which the majority (99% probably) are illegal.
Personally I think the whole system is incorrect. It should be perfectly legal to make free copies of anything as long as you in NO WAY make a profit on it.
Well I don't see what the big deal is... I mean after all, it's not like some money will be magically created to fund this research. It always has to be taken from somewhere else. No matter what, we're paying for it. So if it means you don't pay that much taxes next year, just donate the extra amount to the researchers instead. Oh but... I guess most people aren't THAT enthusiastic about it. Only when they think the money's not coming from their own pocket. (It all comes from you anyway!)
I think that has to do do more with a good business mind. Not a prodigy in programming. Unless of course, you mean that the guy who created winamp discovered the music compression technology which involves Fourier transforms. If so, I think he's a genius. If not, I think the real power lies in the research behind that discovery.
I guess I'm developing a weird view on this. I was programming from age 9 and I'm 23 now. Why? Cause it was fun to create something. Some of the "older folk" are very strange about computers. I think they're afraid to a certain extent, but I also think they just don't see computers as necessary to their way of life and are just not interested in those kinds of toys. I would say that the younger generations merely have a bigger percentage of computer literacy, but this doesn't really mean they could take over anything. I think a 15 year old has a better chance of being in the business of computers successfully, than being a major researcher, software designer, or programmer (for embedded systems etc.) But when you're younger, you have more of a curiosity for things, and if you have a computer available to you from early on, there's a big potential for being self-educated as well as self-educated can be. (Believe me, after all my programming, learning the *right* way to program was a godsend.) Plus, in my own opinion MOST teenagers are concerned with playing video games. Some may download programs that let them pretend to be a "hacker," but there are very few that really know what's going on inside the computer when they do. (So if you're one of those few, be happy.)
I didn't really like Farscape. I had a friend who loved it and recommended I watch it. I suppose it wasn't ALL bad, but definitely not something I'd spend my time watching. The sci-fi on TV that I do watch are the original star trek episodes. Even though I wouldn't exactly recommend these to people who don't have nostalgia for them, I still say they're interesting.
I'm sure more than enough people know about this already, but if you don't try http://www.cheapbytes.com if you want a cheap way of getting distributions...
Angelo
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I'm living in the past... my CD burner is 12x but you have no idea how frustrating it was to find an error telling me to go get a license for my music when I had just burned a CD a month ago (this whole incident was some time ago). And then reinstalling windows so many times (and I don't care what anyone says, installing windows takes me longer than Linux)
But if the post about Roxio licensing Windows CD burner is true, I have NO idea why I was blocked from burning CDs. They even told me to select an item from a menu that didn't even exist, so I knew it had to be something Windows was doing. Maybe it makes sense if WMP updated a dll which was used by my burning software (considering that this Roxio-Microsoft relationship is true).
On a side note, I didn't know cdrecord worked on Windows. cdrecord has always worked for me
Incidentally, I can burn music CDs on Windows 2000 only because I figured out which update blocks it: Windows Media Player. Honestly I didn't read the EULA, but basically now I won't install wmp 7.1 or later.
This was a frustrating experience for me as I had to reinstall Windows 2000 3 times in order to figure out what was going on (I thought it was hidden in some other updates).
Anyway, I guess now that I think about it, you're right in as far as this probably isn't a music copying issue as much as it is an attempt to do away with Roxio... under the guise of copyright protection it would be hard to punish.
... and Nero is an exception. I think this has to do with the dll files they are relying upon. Sorry but this is the direction things are going in, and yes I realize a lot of it has to do with the fact that MS would rather you use THEIR cd burning software in XP, but you don't think this has anything to do with RIAA?
You can burn things in Nero--good for you, but at least think before you post.
Unfortunately steps have been taken and are being taken to make sure most people cannot burn music files to CDR...
And really this has been the point to begin with--they don't care if some "technically savvy" people are able to trade music, but because the common stupid user can trade any music they want, they have to try to stop it. Basically if you use Linux of course YOU can burn music files... but have you tried burning music files on Windows?
I did, and so far they have at least blocked me from burning mp3 files to CD format through Windows--even when I used non-MS software. Basically the operating system blocked it by checking to see if the file was licensed first. This was particularly frustrating seeing as how I have mp3 files which I recorded myself... do I need software to create my own licenses for myself now?
Basically if only Linux users could trade or burn music, no one would care.
This has been the basic story/problem for linux and other operating systems from day one. This is absolutely nothing new--more software is written for windows. We even rightly make the claim that "our software is better written" but it really doesn't matter. Just like you said: people want to use the software which makes things easiet for them not only on the physical level of using the computer, but on social and business levels which require compatibility.
Open Office is only NOW making some ground with this. I'm sorry, I dont' mean to insult anyone but the GNU and KDE office packages really didn't cut it--they were always behind especially on their file conversions. And how long has Linux been around? You can't expect the common user to write documents with TeX. And for those of you who remember the days of Red Hat 5.2 or before, who was using Linux to write documents? I didn't know anyone.
The way I see it, people need to be developing more for Linux and not just in the gaming department. I think gaming should come last, actually because the return on the amount of work required is so low. Right now, I think Linux needs to concentrate on multimedia: movie file playback, codecs, mp3 players, DVD players, good sound card drivers. And all of this needs to be done WELL: interfaces should be easy to use, clean, attractive, the files played must not skip or be slow, or be difficult to see.
ok I'm done.
Sometimes I wonder why the courts don't just put SCO out of its misery...
I mean isn't it pretty apparent to everyone that these are some last rites? These are just theatrics as a last dying attempt in vengeance against their bane. I mean this makes SCO look really really awful as they writhe in agony, striking out as spitefully as they can at the IBM/Linux partnership.
I don't think anyone can take this whole charade seriously. I hope this abuse of the court system doesn't go unpunished. Has anyone ever considered how quickly things move along and get developed in the techological world? Does anyone see how grossly slow and inadequate the traditional court system is at handling things of this nature? With legal battles, appeals, loopholes, etc. by the time anyone wins a case they're looking at technology that older than dirt.
EXACTLY. More to the point, in the traditional system, a company has a distinct motive for stealing code--to make more money/gain market share. While I'm not saying Linux doesn't make money, there are some differences behind the philosophies and how this works.
With proprietary software, you don't see the code. If you steal code, you have a better chance of getting away with it AND you can be more competitive.
With open source software everyone gets to see what you've done! That's the rule! There is more motive to create your own code or use other open sourced code under this system than taking it illegally. Doing so is more harmful than good.
Do we really know how likely SCO's claims are to be true? Personally, I think that the Linux community is pretty proud of having "done it themselves" and doesn't want to use SCO's code at all. In fact, it's a very bad thing for the GPL if people put code under the GPL illegally.
The only way people will trust open source is to trust the open source developers. As more and more people are warming up to the idea that "free software isn't junk" the last thing needed is for consumers and companies to think that it was all done using someone else's code.
Actually, to "prove" it's copyrighted material does not require them to download the entire song or to listen to the entire song... even a small piece of the song is copyrighted.
I'd like to see them track you down trading mp3's on FreeNet... maybe a chance to make FreeNet more popular? ;)
Ideally yes... however, I'm glad to see that this is proving that the system is working to some extent. Even though the original idea was to create the laws the people wanted first, it's nice to know that the system of checks and balances is working fairly well even so many centuries from its inception.
Well I don't completely agree. A truck can be used for alot of things. If this file sharing system can be used for ANY type of file, then yes absolutely. If it can only be used for mp3 files, then no. The point is, you can't make a program that has the only purpose of transferring files which the majority (99% probably) are illegal.
Personally I think the whole system is incorrect. It should be perfectly legal to make free copies of anything as long as you in NO WAY make a profit on it.
Well I don't see what the big deal is... I mean after all, it's not like some money will be magically created to fund this research. It always has to be taken from somewhere else. No matter what, we're paying for it. So if it means you don't pay that much taxes next year, just donate the extra amount to the researchers instead. Oh but... I guess most people aren't THAT enthusiastic about it. Only when they think the money's not coming from their own pocket. (It all comes from you anyway!)
I think that has to do do more with a good business mind. Not a prodigy in programming. Unless of course, you mean that the guy who created winamp discovered the music compression technology which involves Fourier transforms. If so, I think he's a genius. If not, I think the real power lies in the research behind that discovery.
I guess I'm developing a weird view on this. I was programming from age 9 and I'm 23 now. Why? Cause it was fun to create something. Some of the "older folk" are very strange about computers. I think they're afraid to a certain extent, but I also think they just don't see computers as necessary to their way of life and are just not interested in those kinds of toys. I would say that the younger generations merely have a bigger percentage of computer literacy, but this doesn't really mean they could take over anything. I think a 15 year old has a better chance of being in the business of computers successfully, than being a major researcher, software designer, or programmer (for embedded systems etc.) But when you're younger, you have more of a curiosity for things, and if you have a computer available to you from early on, there's a big potential for being self-educated as well as self-educated can be. (Believe me, after all my programming, learning the *right* way to program was a godsend.) Plus, in my own opinion MOST teenagers are concerned with playing video games. Some may download programs that let them pretend to be a "hacker," but there are very few that really know what's going on inside the computer when they do. (So if you're one of those few, be happy.)
parricide: the act of murdering one's own father, mother, or a close relative.
patricide: the murder of one's own father
I didn't really like Farscape. I had a friend who loved it and recommended I watch it. I suppose it wasn't ALL bad, but definitely not something I'd spend my time watching. The sci-fi on TV that I do watch are the original star trek episodes. Even though I wouldn't exactly recommend these to people who don't have nostalgia for them, I still say they're interesting.
I'm sure more than enough people know about this already, but if you don't try http://www.cheapbytes.com if you want a cheap way of getting distributions...
Angelo