Don't lay all the blame on the "right to profit" ideal. Some of the problem stems from people not knowing what their rights are and not really caring as long as it doesn't affect them.
Sure, the/. crowd drags out the tinfoil hat every time something like this comes up, but how many people is that compared to the remaining population of the U.S.? All those non-/.'ers are going to hear is "piracy evil, RIAA good" because they can buy the airtime and they can buy Congress.
Me? I'm out of ideas beyond boycotting. It's legal and doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't have a pocketbook in the fight. I don't see the point in trying to crack the encryption - they just come up with more and more. At least with a boycott, they can't force you to consume.
(Well, unless someone finds your secret weakness for Britney or Madonna).
How something is used and what it is supposed to be used for can frequently be two very different things. Just because the hammer is used to murder doesn't mean that the idea behind the hammer is not, in and of itself, a good thing.
Politics is at best, clumsy carpentry. In the case of the DMCA, it is an attempt to write a simple law to cover a situation thats far too complex to be handled by just one law.
There are a couple of problems with your argument (quoting non-existent characters in a serious argument aside):
1. Stealing bread to feed your family in no way compares to writing a virus and intentionally releasing it. One is a benevolent crime, the other is malevolent. Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.
2. While "legal" doesn't necessarily equate to "right" or "ethical", it's still legal and therefore not prosecutable in a court of criminal law. In order for laws to be "right", you have to change the laws. But then there is the question of subjective vs. objective, etc. and getting everyone to agree on what is "right".
3. Under the law, Microsoft did nothing wrong in this specific case. All blame lies with the writer of the virus. While the law does consider acts of negligence in some cases, whoever decides these things hasn't gotten around to crimes of omission in software coding (and you better pray they don't ever get around to it, either).
I think you would be hard pressed to find any law that applies in this case where Microsoft has any blame in this matter.
PS. I am a skeptic when it comes to the issue of natural law or natural rights. Those are human creations and subject to interpretation depending on who you ask.
Set up a small, representative network at home - don't bother making it work like you would use a home machine, but rather concentrate on how the company would need it.
You're telling me that if the Bush team lies loud enough and long enough, they can tell the most bald faced lies in the world, and it's ok?
No, but at the end of the day, you'll be right and they'll still be in charge, which is exactly where you started the day. Only when enough people get fed up with the whole damn system are we going to change it.
Yes, but this is/. where everything that restricts is viewed in the worst possible light, and any technology is viewed in the best possible light, unless it's technology that disables rather than enables, unless it disables something that disables... and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
Don't try to analyze it. We're all candidates for tin-foil hattery. Even you.
Both sides of the fence have created bad laws - it's not something that is limited to one party or the other. Usually, it's because something that starts out as a good idea turns out to have ramifications far beyond the original intent.
Take DMCA, for instance. The core of the idea is not necessarily a bad one - to provide some means of protection for electronically distributed materials to prevent rampant copyright infringement. What it turned into is something entirely different because it is not possible to narrowly frame the law so that it covers all of the instance necessary.
Another law - COPA (or COPPA). Again, the core of the idea is a good one - keep porn out of the reach of minors. But the end result winds up restricting adults who have full rights to view the material.
So now, you've got laws that had good intent but once lawyers and the courts get hold of them, are subject to interpretation, which leads to another nightmare. Is the illegal action a definite act or an indefinite act? Murder is pretty definite, either a person is dead or their not, and if they're dead, how did they get that way, etc. The same with theft, etc.
But indefinite acts are subject to interpretation - does copying three notes from a song comprise infringement? I guess it does now. When Vanilla Ice ganked a bass line from Queen's Under Pressure was it infringement? I say yes - others may disagree.
The political process is one of compromise, as well. In order for politicians to get something they want, it may be necessary to agree with things they don't want, otherwise, nobody gets anything.
So, in absolute fact, Clinton's administration did pass the DMCA. But what was the original intent behind it and who first proposed it and who supported it? By the time all was said and done, it was Clinton's to sell to the public, regardless of all of that.
Some/.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.
Because they so frequently get it wrong, maybe?
Seriously, though - the effect of this law depends on whether or not the government can completely replace the funds lost due to commercial sales on some imagery being curtailed AND whether or not Euro-providers step up to the plate.
And by doing so, you'll only feed the rhetorical flames that Open Source gaming is only concerned with ripping off commercial companies because they're too cheap to buy the real thing.
It doesn't matter how much time you actually spent writing the new version of the game, or the dollar value of that time, if calculable. All that matters, in the end, is how the commercial company sells the idea that you're ripping them off to whomever will listen.
Much better idea to open-source the core code, and then write a new game using the engine with original characters, situations, etc. Then you've actually created something new and unique instead of ripping off someone elses material.
What is the deal with Texas companies and California? California is annoying, granted, but since when did Texans decide it was OK to start reaming California every which way? Did California poop in the Wheaties or something? I'm truly mystified here, since one of the basic rules I learned was not to kick someone when their down.
'Cause they might get up again.
Disclaimer: I'm from Texas. This whole situation is somewhat embarrassing. We're supposed to be the good guys.
Telemarketers and debt collection agencies can NOT use services like this
You mean legitimate telemarketers and debt collection agencies can't use something like this service. I doubt the people who want to use this have legitimate reasons for doing so.
they should instead concentrate on growing their UNIX business to make a (modest) profit.
Which is why we should concentrate on destroying them, utterly and completely, until the name of SCO and Darl McBride is uttered only by those who seek to offend or scare.
If, after a nuclear war, you spend your time hunting for Planck's Constant (or server documentation) instead of food or other means of survival, you deserve to be eaten by the Morlocks or the aliens or terrorists or George Bush or whoever started it.
OK, the example quoted above is from Brazil and is fictitious, but it does make a valid point. The underlying assumption on the part of a lot of computer users is that computers are infallible (which is not true, but only a select few actually understand that idea).
The problem I see with the singularity (and by extension, all machine dominated-societies) is the idea that our masters, and make no mistake, they will be our masters, whether we give it to them, or they take it, is that the computers are infallible. Nothing they do can be wrong.
The above example (Buttle vs. Tuttle) came about because a bug fell into the machine as it was typing out a form, and that caused the error which led to disastrous consequences, but because man had become subservient to machines, there was no way to correct the problem.
Thus, in my opinion, the Singularity is a thing to be regarded with extreme approbation, and a healthy dose of skepticism.
Governments run by robots are merely prone to error.
Which is all fine and good until a bug in the computer changes Tuttle to Buttle and the wrong guy gets his account debited for Information Retrieval charges.
It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.
Actually, soldiers who commit war crimes are considered to be at fault. "Following orders" is not considered a valid excuse.
Now, these guys don't rise to the level of being war criminals, but some harsh punishment is definitely in order, since it appears that they already had the means to commit the crime in place, before any actual other criminal activity took place.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't lay all the blame on the "right to profit" ideal. Some of the problem stems from people not knowing what their rights are and not really caring as long as it doesn't affect them.
/. crowd drags out the tinfoil hat every time something like this comes up, but how many people is that compared to the remaining population of the U.S.? All those non-/.'ers are going to hear is "piracy evil, RIAA good" because they can buy the airtime and they can buy Congress.
Sure, the
Me? I'm out of ideas beyond boycotting. It's legal and doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't have a pocketbook in the fight. I don't see the point in trying to crack the encryption - they just come up with more and more. At least with a boycott, they can't force you to consume.
(Well, unless someone finds your secret weakness for Britney or Madonna).
You're missing a prime chance to pull a real stunt.
You're also missing the prime opportunity to get your ass sued into the poorhouse if you sell it to the wrong person who has a good lawyer.
Sound like someone has a case of the Mondays ...
Well, someone had to say it!
it was obvious that it was going to be used
How something is used and what it is supposed to be used for can frequently be two very different things. Just because the hammer is used to murder doesn't mean that the idea behind the hammer is not, in and of itself, a good thing.
Politics is at best, clumsy carpentry. In the case of the DMCA, it is an attempt to write a simple law to cover a situation thats far too complex to be handled by just one law.
There are a couple of problems with your argument (quoting non-existent characters in a serious argument aside):
1. Stealing bread to feed your family in no way compares to writing a virus and intentionally releasing it. One is a benevolent crime, the other is malevolent. Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges.
2. While "legal" doesn't necessarily equate to "right" or "ethical", it's still legal and therefore not prosecutable in a court of criminal law. In order for laws to be "right", you have to change the laws. But then there is the question of subjective vs. objective, etc. and getting everyone to agree on what is "right".
3. Under the law, Microsoft did nothing wrong in this specific case. All blame lies with the writer of the virus. While the law does consider acts of negligence in some cases, whoever decides these things hasn't gotten around to crimes of omission in software coding (and you better pray they don't ever get around to it, either).
I think you would be hard pressed to find any law that applies in this case where Microsoft has any blame in this matter.
PS. I am a skeptic when it comes to the issue of natural law or natural rights. Those are human creations and subject to interpretation depending on who you ask.
Set up a small, representative network at home - don't bother making it work like you would use a home machine, but rather concentrate on how the company would need it.
You're telling me that if the Bush team lies loud enough and long enough, they can tell the most bald faced lies in the world, and it's ok?
No, but at the end of the day, you'll be right and they'll still be in charge, which is exactly where you started the day. Only when enough people get fed up with the whole damn system are we going to change it.
Yes, but this is /. where everything that restricts is viewed in the worst possible light, and any technology is viewed in the best possible light, unless it's technology that disables rather than enables, unless it disables something that disables ... and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.
Don't try to analyze it. We're all candidates for tin-foil hattery. Even you.
Both sides of the fence have created bad laws - it's not something that is limited to one party or the other. Usually, it's because something that starts out as a good idea turns out to have ramifications far beyond the original intent.
Take DMCA, for instance. The core of the idea is not necessarily a bad one - to provide some means of protection for electronically distributed materials to prevent rampant copyright infringement. What it turned into is something entirely different because it is not possible to narrowly frame the law so that it covers all of the instance necessary.
Another law - COPA (or COPPA). Again, the core of the idea is a good one - keep porn out of the reach of minors. But the end result winds up restricting adults who have full rights to view the material.
So now, you've got laws that had good intent but once lawyers and the courts get hold of them, are subject to interpretation, which leads to another nightmare. Is the illegal action a definite act or an indefinite act? Murder is pretty definite, either a person is dead or their not, and if they're dead, how did they get that way, etc. The same with theft, etc.
But indefinite acts are subject to interpretation - does copying three notes from a song comprise infringement? I guess it does now. When Vanilla Ice ganked a bass line from Queen's Under Pressure was it infringement? I say yes - others may disagree.
The political process is one of compromise, as well. In order for politicians to get something they want, it may be necessary to agree with things they don't want, otherwise, nobody gets anything.
So, in absolute fact, Clinton's administration did pass the DMCA. But what was the original intent behind it and who first proposed it and who supported it? By the time all was said and done, it was Clinton's to sell to the public, regardless of all of that.
Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.
Because they so frequently get it wrong, maybe?
Seriously, though - the effect of this law depends on whether or not the government can completely replace the funds lost due to commercial sales on some imagery being curtailed AND whether or not Euro-providers step up to the plate.
Which I bet they will - they'd be stupid not to.
Yep, you're right.
And by doing so, you'll only feed the rhetorical flames that Open Source gaming is only concerned with ripping off commercial companies because they're too cheap to buy the real thing.
It doesn't matter how much time you actually spent writing the new version of the game, or the dollar value of that time, if calculable. All that matters, in the end, is how the commercial company sells the idea that you're ripping them off to whomever will listen.
Much better idea to open-source the core code, and then write a new game using the engine with original characters, situations, etc. Then you've actually created something new and unique instead of ripping off someone elses material.
but Java isn't the turtle everyone makes it out to be.
Until you run it on a 500-mHz iBook, don't make that claim.
What is the deal with Texas companies and California? California is annoying, granted, but since when did Texans decide it was OK to start reaming California every which way? Did California poop in the Wheaties or something? I'm truly mystified here, since one of the basic rules I learned was not to kick someone when their down.
'Cause they might get up again.
Disclaimer: I'm from Texas. This whole situation is somewhat embarrassing. We're supposed to be the good guys.
Telemarketers and debt collection agencies can NOT use services like this
You mean legitimate telemarketers and debt collection agencies can't use something like this service. I doubt the people who want to use this have legitimate reasons for doing so.
Both fans are expected to show up. /sarcasm
yea.. he will be out of a job..
But he'll still have a ton of money, giving him the wherewithal to do whatever he needs to do.
What will you have?
they should instead concentrate on growing their UNIX business to make a (modest) profit.
Which is why we should concentrate on destroying them, utterly and completely, until the name of SCO and Darl McBride is uttered only by those who seek to offend or scare.
If, after a nuclear war, you spend your time hunting for Planck's Constant (or server documentation) instead of food or other means of survival, you deserve to be eaten by the Morlocks or the aliens or terrorists or George Bush or whoever started it.
OK, the example quoted above is from Brazil and is fictitious, but it does make a valid point. The underlying assumption on the part of a lot of computer users is that computers are infallible (which is not true, but only a select few actually understand that idea).
The problem I see with the singularity (and by extension, all machine dominated-societies) is the idea that our masters, and make no mistake, they will be our masters, whether we give it to them, or they take it, is that the computers are infallible. Nothing they do can be wrong.
The above example (Buttle vs. Tuttle) came about because a bug fell into the machine as it was typing out a form, and that caused the error which led to disastrous consequences, but because man had become subservient to machines, there was no way to correct the problem.
Thus, in my opinion, the Singularity is a thing to be regarded with extreme approbation, and a healthy dose of skepticism.
Governments run by robots are merely prone to error.
Which is all fine and good until a bug in the computer changes Tuttle to Buttle and the wrong guy gets his account debited for Information Retrieval charges.
One step closer to the singularity...
The day some idiot turns decision making over to computers is the day I start the Butlerian Jihad.
It's like the soldier who's ordered to commit war crimes. What do you do? It's in no way you're fault - but you're in a lose - lose situation.
Actually, soldiers who commit war crimes are considered to be at fault. "Following orders" is not considered a valid excuse.
Now, these guys don't rise to the level of being war criminals, but some harsh punishment is definitely in order, since it appears that they already had the means to commit the crime in place, before any actual other criminal activity took place.
Which in and of itself is a crime.
I actually liked Howard the Duck!
Unfortunately, it's not out on DVD and probably never will be.
I did not, however, think much of Battlefield Earth.
upgrade to shock collars for all the developers
Replace the seat of their Herman Miller chair with a wire grid and wire that up instead.
Question: is this available for non-Linspire machines?
...
...
Oh, gods! The horror
If you do dialup through AOHELL, you deserve exactly what you're going to get