Razor companies sell the handle as a loss-leader, making up huge profits on the blades. Sure, some third-party blades that fit the handle come out that are cheaper, and the original company complains somewhat, but the vast majority continue to buy the "genuine article", and life goes on.
Ink jet printer manufacturers probably don't make a dime on the printers themselves: the profit is in the ink carts. Yes, some people buy refill kits, but still the vast majority buy the real replacement cartridges. Token complaining aside, the printer maker is happy.
The same is true, I'm certain, with the X-Box. There aren't that many modded systems out there to make more than the tiniest dent in actual sales of X-Box games. In a sane political environment, Microsoft would whine a bit but really, there would be nothing they could do, as the console belongs to the citizen and it should be none of Microsoft's business what anyone does with it.
Microsoft, however, has the advantage of being on the "right" side of the WIPO treaties which forbid all this "digital theft", and effectively remove a person's right to do what he/she wants with their own property. The USA was a "leader" in this: by passing the DMCA in 1998, they were easily the first Western nation to ratify this crap into what is now international law.
Most countries that signed onto the agreement haven't yet ratified it, but most are getting close to doing so.
Seems the Australian court system wasn't told how to rule properly on this issue. Ballmer thinks that a nudge may be required to make sure Australia is in line. Must be nice to have that kind of influence.
If they can't make money making movies, then *stop making movies*!!! Nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to pay all these actors and support personel to work on stuff that will bankrupt you.
If DVD releases reduce your box office take, then *don't release on DVD so soon*!!! Nobody's forcing you to sell your content in a home-enjoyable format, let alone at small price that will bankrupt you.
Since I presume that they will continue to do both of the above, I will have to assume one of the following:
- you are telling the truth and will drive yourself knowingly into bankruptcy (in other words, you're an idiot), - you are lying (in other words, you're an asshole).
And then you start to see a scenario like the one laid out in an episode of Star Trek: TNG (where a scientist has only one chance to find a long-term solution to his planet's problems because his society demands he commit ritual suicide at age 60). It was determined that for the "greater good" of the society (and to avoid needing to deal with the question of euthenasia of the elderly), all citizens were to die at age 60.
I think the concern is one of erosion of individual rights (you know, that line in the Declaration of Independance that says "All men are created equal"). In your example, the consequenses of your insurance scenario is a benefit to society as a whole (lower overall cost to insure the population), but too bad if you're the sap with "certain predispositions" that has to pay through the nose to receive health care! Or, in the above ST example, too bad if you're completely healthy and not a burden to anyone at age 60!
BTW, I myself (as an individual) actually prefer the suicide option (or "living will"-style euthenasia) to living in pain or supported by machines or living without dignity. But that should be *my* decision, not society's or the government's.
You'll note that RedHat still provided an easy (although essentially labelled "Use at your own risk") link to the changelog. In other words, they encourage you to break their strict interpretation of the law in order to get your work done.
They are simply trying to make a point: that the DMCA is stupid, and you have to do stupid things to be in compliance with it. By the way, the application of the DMCA in this scenario is not that the changelog is a circumvention device to the Linux kernel. The issue is that Linux can be(and I imagine is) used effectively *AS* a copy protection product, and the information in the changelog could be interpreted as a way of circumventing the protections.
And as far as Red Hat losing respect in the business community: I doubt it. Any business which is enlightened enough to adopt free software at all will already understand the nuances of copyright issues (they will have had to have investigated the GPL and BSD licences), and will not be scared away by this.
He is making the same point as you (just in a more subtle way). The legislation in question *does* in fact target all of these systems (they meet the definition of a digital media device in the bill).
As a result of such silliness (along with the even sillier examples like digital anal thermometers and such), getting the bill into law is going to be fought at many levels. It will be virtually impossible to get it in with the wording currently proposed. Exceptions *will* be made to permit the manufacture of non-DRMed hardware, and that automatically weakens the intent of DRM (ubiquitous protection of licenced content).
As far as Victor is concerned, he has little to worry about. Hardware for embedded systems will be unencumbered. He's just airing for the side of sanity from his perspective.
.. it has little to do with the long-term financial health of an entire generation. What has to be accepted by everyone is a fundamental slowdown in Western civilization (particularly in the US and Canada).
For about 100 years there was a continuous and (relatively) steady increase in the "quality of life" here, including longer life spans, higher incomes, more liesure time, etc. This is coming to a head now, with the peak earning years of the Baby Boomers. This is the group of people that will go down in history as the luckiest and most previleged ever.
What has happened is that during the earning time of the Boomers, a time when society as a whole should have been saving up, we have instead been spending. Now we have trillions in shared debt that has to be paid off eventually. Going forward from here, the cost to support our society is going up (because the average person is getting older), so the people who drive the society (the next generation) are going to receive less.
I don't see our society doing drastic action like cutting support to the Boomers at this time: they are still the most powerful generation and will stop any attempt to lessen their priveledge. Today's (and tomorrows) taxpayers will support the Boomers into old age, and I believe that they will bleed the system dry (pulling out far more than the next generations can put in).
If you think that things are rough out there now, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
BTW, the severity of this crunch in the future will depend on how quickly the Boomers are cut off. Like I said, I (pessimistically) believe that it won't be allowed to happen until the bottom has already completely fallen out. It will take a very strong and brave administration to be able to accomplish anything else.
I'll agree with most of your points, but one in incorrect: there is no incentive on the part of hardware manufacturers to remove the ability to turn Palladium off. Sure, they'll build in the ability to have it on (so you can run Windows XXXp), but why would they voluntarily isolate their market for non-DRM enabled products? That seems to be rather foolish.
Your last paragraph is the accurate one: the ability to turn it off will be removed only with legislation.
Still, with the intent to turn all computers into sealed boxes, you've got to know that lots of hardware makers will follow the lead of Apex and start including "secret" menus that "weren't supposed to be there." Also, the volume of identical but "DRM disabled" hardware shipped to Canada will grow tremendously.
It will take a long time for the CBDTPA to pass into law. It will take longer still for a "standard" to be agreed upon and implemented. The optimist in me says that by the time all this happens, the current crop of "legal" uses for computers will be commonplace, and any attempt to remove them will be resisted by *everyone*, not just geeks. Then the law will be quietly shuffled to the side, unenforced until it is finally struck down as unconsitutional.
A very good point, skip EULA'd software and skip the audit. So you tell the BSA that you don't own (and certainly didn't register) any of their software. You never agreed to an audit. Now go away!
Do they take you at face value? Or do they press for an audit? I'll ask again: has there ever been a case where the BSA has used the legal system to *force* their way through a business' door? And what happens if they shut down your operation, confiscate all your computers, and find nothing but Free software?
One thing that film still has going for it is *ease of making prints*. With film, the average Joe takes the film to the photo shack, returns in an hour, and has permanent prints forever.
With digital, you have to own a computer, photo printer, and image processing software. You transfer files to your computer, manipulate the size, use expensive pre-cut photo paper (or make up sheets and cut yourself), etc. It's time consuming and the average Joe doesn't want to do any of this!
I've seen a few photo shops allow you to bring in your CompactFlash / Smartmedia card and they make a set of prints for you (you follow the same steps as you would with a roll of film). This is the *right* way to go, but there aren't many places that do this and it is substantially more expensive.
Until this sorts out, film certainly has its place with the computer-hating crowd.
Not accountants alone. The process is they show up with, if necessary, federal marshals who will tell you to "step back from the terminal." They are carrying little things at their sides which encourage compliance.
Precisely my question: has this ever happened? I'm really curious if a case of "licence infringement" has actually resulted in an audit which was *forced* on a business!
I've read lots of stories here on organizations (City of Virginia Beach comes to mind) that have been served with a letter from the BSA about the status of their licences. But has there EVER been an actual raid on an organization?
I ask this because it seems to me if a squad of accountants from the BSA showed up on the door of my business, I would say "Go away, I'm busy!" For their threats to mean anything, they would have to get a warrant from a judge. Which would require reasonable grounds for search and seizure. Which would require the actions of the police.
I think that we would all have heard of such an event by now, if it has happened. If it has (and I missed it), please let me know.
I assume the audits in question are carried out voluntarily because the business cannot risk that the BSA may do exactly what I describe above. The impact of preparing for the audit is less than the impact of having your office shut down (perhaps indefinately) by a police search. If you were then found to be in compliance, would you have legal recourse against the BSA?
Add to the above the oft-repeated "run as root" issue. It's not just that the users may find themselves victims of viri-to-come, it also reflects badly on Linux as a whole once this happens. The newbie using Lindows will curse Linux just the same as Windows in this regard.
.. just don't punish me for "unrestricting" the content.
It's been said before: trying to restrict copying and usage has always been legal. But it has never been effective. If it doesn't interfere with the users' experience, it's trivial to break. If it actually accomplishes its goals, it's such a pain that it is rejected in the open market.
What the DMCA did was essentially outlaw the ability to break trival protections. Technically, you can still break them and use them yourself, but telling anyone else about how you did it is like trafficing drugs or guns now.
It seems that this bill is over-reacting in the other direction by *requiring* the ability to back up data (ie. removing protections). As such, it probably does swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.
All I really want is to see the portions of the DMCA which are unconstitutional (restrict freedom of speech) to be revoked. This way, trivial restrictions would not be protected by law, media companies would have no hammer to beat on hardware manufacturers, and the market will be free to react as they did with DIVX.
Will not pass, but good to do anyways..
on
Lofgren's Anti-DRM Bill
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Neither this bill nor Boucher's will pass, because there is no huge lobby (or $$) for this cause like Hollywood has. Still, it's good to go forward anyways, since raising public awareness is the only shot we have to change the industry's mind.
Actually, introducing this now (when it might possibly be made into an election issue) is a great idea, as the public is paying a bit more attention to politics than usual and is less likely to be completely ignored by mainstream press (a la DMCA).
BTW, *two* bills that seek to accomplish roughly the same thing? Why?
Why is it that all of these manufacturers use the same 5400 and 7200 rpm speeds for their drives? Why couldn't one manufacturer put out their drives at, say, 6000 and 8000 rpm (from a marketing standpoint, this would be beneficial: kind of like Intel using MHz as a benchmark for comparative "performance" against AMD).
Is there a good reason for this uniformity across manufacturers? Do they use the same motors from a 3rd party supplier? What gives?
I guess ATi decided that it wasn't worth putting the IEEE1394 Firewire port on the card, like the AIW 8500 DV. But I guess most people would be putting this card on a newer mobo, and more and more of them are supporting Firewire directly. Makes sense, I guess.
Just like with Dmitry, the "target" will always be a publicly unsympathetic, unsavoury hacker-type.
The precident that the RIAA/MPAA chooses to permit to proceed to the Supreme Court will only be the one that they have the maximum chance of success with. Until then, they are satisfied with the chilling effect and scare tactics, and in the case where there are civil/criminal charges laid, they will be dropped if they figure out halfway through that this is not the *right* case to go to the wall with.
That's the frustrating part: the Constitutionality of the DMCA will not be determined until a case regarding it is heard by the Supreme Court, but the case on which it is presented is one that the court will be loathe to find in favour of free speech. But, we can hope.
Hope you don't expect to be connecting over the standard consumer DSL or Cable providers' lines. In case you haven't read most of the "acceptable use" agreements lately, you will *not* be permitted to run these services out of your box. They'll be sniffing for open ports, and you'll probably get nailed for violating their terms of service.
Then again, if the reason that you're looking to do this on the cheap is because you're plowing all your cash into a higher-end pipe that permits servers, never mind!
You are describing the home PC, and you are absolutely right: Linux is far away from mainstream here for all the reasons you stated.
The enterprise is another story. On the server end, Linux is already well placed and gaining installations. And why not? It's stable, secure, robust, and free from nasty licences and restrictions.
On the desktop, they're getting there too. Windows will always be a better desktop OS, but the *gap* between a Linux desktop and Windows is narrowing all the time. Add to this the advantages of customizability, licencing (again), and the fact that corporations tend to frown on users installing their own new "scanner or digital camera or video card" into their PCs, a Linux desktop looks like a great platform for a corporate desktop (after it matures a bit more).
And, of course, the enterprise is where the real money is made by Microsoft (not the home users) So, I disagree with your statement: Microsoft is (or should be) *plenty* concerned with the advancement of Linux.
Bottom line, I expect *many* large corporations will be MS-free within two years. At home, it will happen more gradually, but the increased penetration at work will slowly drive home installations, too.
The desktop's time will come, especially in the enterprise.
The thing is that Windows will always have more polish than any Linux desktop. But it is the *gap* between Windows and open desktops that is shrinking. Soon (within a couple of years, IMHO), there will be many large corporations who will likely take the plunge with Linux as their standard desktop environment because:
Linux desktops will be "good enough" (tighter and faster than now, pretty good at opening Office docs, better network administration, etc.)
Wanting to save on costs of purchasing new PCs all the time (Linux does client/server apps better).
Microsoft's continuing to escalate the "software as a service" rental fees, causing companies to lose control on their IT budget.
The likelihood is good that a high-profile breach in a major company's security will be linked to a breach in Windows desktop machines, as opposed to a server. This will continue to devalue their trustworthiness in the eyes of companies.
All of these items are linked to cost to the enterprise. As soon as it is proven (and obvious to all) that there is little downside to perceived productivity and huge upside in reduced costs, the migration will begin. And I haven't even mentioned the issue of freeing your data from proprietary formats: as important as this is, most organizations haven't been stung by it yet and don't see it as critical.
Patience is all that is required. Well, that and fighting against the only thing that *can* keep MS in their current dominant position: government legislation handcuffing open software. You can bet that they're quietly trying to figure out how this can be accomplished!
If it is a derivative work of GPL'ed code (and it certainly looks that way), then the subsequent work MUST be also GPL'ed.
It still doesn't mean they have to distribute the end product.
However, I agree with the previous post that it there does not appear to be any reason NOT to re-release the code, as long as someone else hosts/maintains the work.
So as long as DRM is reasonable about fair use, stops the majority of people from doing the wrong thing (and can more-or-less keep up with the bleeding-edge crackers)...
Almost by definition, this cannot happen. Any DRM scheme that works to its publishers desires will be undesirable to anyone who wants to purchase the content.
So basically, you probably will not be distributing your work electronically for the forseeable future. Which means that instead of earning some money from legitimate downloads of your work (and putting up with some illegitimate copying), *all* of the electronic distribution of your work will earn you *nothing*. Just so you know....
Just think about all the things in life you enjoy and most exist because at some time someone or company made money creating it.
This is exactly the issue. Not many people here at/. really want to see all copyright/patent laws thrown into the crapper. What rankles everyone here is that here, in an age where the advancement of technology and culture is expanding faster than at any time in history, we have information that is devalued and commoditized very, very quickly. However, the rights of users is getting more restricted while the copyright is in force, and the time it takes for the people to freely benefit (copyright expires) is getting *longer*, not shorter.
The way the laws are heading, "the things in life I enjoy" will be under the thumb and benefiting its "creators" (ha!) generations after the actual artists who created the work are dead. Are you saying that copyright laws are being improved so that dead artists will be encouraged to create?
The anonymous donation is not to advocate repealing these concepts of law, but rather to reign in the unnecessary expansion of these laws.
I'd say that very few of these (or any) "high profile" patent cases EVER make it to a jury or judge to render a decision. (An obvious exception is the BT hyperlink patent, but that wasn't in N. America.) Well before that time, it will already be obvious which way the decision will come down, and one of two things will happen:
1) In the case where the plantiff will prevail, the defendant will quietly licence the technology from the patent holder; 2) In the case where the defendant will prevail, the plantiff will quietly drop the suit.
This happens because to continue to a verdict will only cost both sides more time and legal fees.
Unfortunately, it also serves to continue the status quo. Until one of these cases gets really nasty in public and goes to a decision (and then likely appeals), then there will be no pressure placed on the patent system to reform.
Why? Because with open hardware, you can run closed software or open software, and the hardware won't care. With *closed* hardware, you can be sure that open software won't run.
For all the talk about security of Palladium, my belief that the project's primary objective is to attack open software. Their attempts to directly compete against it and discredit it have failed. This initiative will attempt to remove open software entirely from any new hardware built to these specs. And make no mistake: most new hardware will be made with Palladium if MS can pull this off. The hardware manufacturers can't afford to put out product that will not run the latest Windows OS.
On top of that, MS has three more trump cards with this setup. They can play them if the above scenario is not enough and any/all of the following occur:
1) Open software is made to run on Palladium hardware, DRM and all - MS asserts its patent on a "DRM operating system". This would be used to sue anyone who tries to make OSS work on *any* hardware. They would demand royalty fees that are untenable to an OSS coder and the product disappears.
2) Open software is made to run on Palladium hardware by bypassing/breaking the DRM - the DMCA would be used to sue or criminally charge the "offenders".
3) OSS has enough penetration that there will still be a substantial market for "open" hardware - Palladium will likely be declared the standard on which the CBDTPA will be based. This means that it will eventually be illegal to distribute hardware that is not Palladium compliant.
Result: OSS survives by running on obsolete computers only, or illegally on newer computers, and the enthusiasm slowly disappears.
Depressing, I know, but it's amazing what market penetration and a few laws can do.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing.
Razor companies sell the handle as a loss-leader, making up huge profits on the blades. Sure, some third-party blades that fit the handle come out that are cheaper, and the original company complains somewhat, but the vast majority continue to buy the "genuine article", and life goes on.
Ink jet printer manufacturers probably don't make a dime on the printers themselves: the profit is in the ink carts. Yes, some people buy refill kits, but still the vast majority buy the real replacement cartridges. Token complaining aside, the printer maker is happy.
The same is true, I'm certain, with the X-Box. There aren't that many modded systems out there to make more than the tiniest dent in actual sales of X-Box games. In a sane political environment, Microsoft would whine a bit but really, there would be nothing they could do, as the console belongs to the citizen and it should be none of Microsoft's business what anyone does with it.
Microsoft, however, has the advantage of being on the "right" side of the WIPO treaties which forbid all this "digital theft", and effectively remove a person's right to do what he/she wants with their own property. The USA was a "leader" in this: by passing the DMCA in 1998, they were easily the first Western nation to ratify this crap into what is now international law.
Most countries that signed onto the agreement haven't yet ratified it, but most are getting close to doing so.
Seems the Australian court system wasn't told how to rule properly on this issue. Ballmer thinks that a nudge may be required to make sure Australia is in line. Must be nice to have that kind of influence.
If they can't make money making movies, then *stop making movies*!!! Nobody's forcing you at gunpoint to pay all these actors and support personel to work on stuff that will bankrupt you.
If DVD releases reduce your box office take, then *don't release on DVD so soon*!!! Nobody's forcing you to sell your content in a home-enjoyable format, let alone at small price that will bankrupt you.
Since I presume that they will continue to do both of the above, I will have to assume one of the following:
- you are telling the truth and will drive yourself knowingly into bankruptcy (in other words, you're an idiot),
- you are lying (in other words, you're an asshole).
Take your pick.
And then you start to see a scenario like the one laid out in an episode of Star Trek: TNG (where a scientist has only one chance to find a long-term solution to his planet's problems because his society demands he commit ritual suicide at age 60). It was determined that for the "greater good" of the society (and to avoid needing to deal with the question of euthenasia of the elderly), all citizens were to die at age 60.
I think the concern is one of erosion of individual rights (you know, that line in the Declaration of Independance that says "All men are created equal"). In your example, the consequenses of your insurance scenario is a benefit to society as a whole (lower overall cost to insure the population), but too bad if you're the sap with "certain predispositions" that has to pay through the nose to receive health care! Or, in the above ST example, too bad if you're completely healthy and not a burden to anyone at age 60!
BTW, I myself (as an individual) actually prefer the suicide option (or "living will"-style euthenasia) to living in pain or supported by machines or living without dignity. But that should be *my* decision, not society's or the government's.
You'll note that RedHat still provided an easy (although essentially labelled "Use at your own risk") link to the changelog. In other words, they encourage you to break their strict interpretation of the law in order to get your work done.
They are simply trying to make a point: that the DMCA is stupid, and you have to do stupid things to be in compliance with it. By the way, the application of the DMCA in this scenario is not that the changelog is a circumvention device to the Linux kernel. The issue is that Linux can be(and I imagine is) used effectively *AS* a copy protection product, and the information in the changelog could be interpreted as a way of circumventing the protections.
And as far as Red Hat losing respect in the business community: I doubt it. Any business which is enlightened enough to adopt free software at all will already understand the nuances of copyright issues (they will have had to have investigated the GPL and BSD licences), and will not be scared away by this.
He is making the same point as you (just in a more subtle way). The legislation in question *does* in fact target all of these systems (they meet the definition of a digital media device in the bill).
As a result of such silliness (along with the even sillier examples like digital anal thermometers and such), getting the bill into law is going to be fought at many levels. It will be virtually impossible to get it in with the wording currently proposed. Exceptions *will* be made to permit the manufacture of non-DRMed hardware, and that automatically weakens the intent of DRM (ubiquitous protection of licenced content).
As far as Victor is concerned, he has little to worry about. Hardware for embedded systems will be unencumbered. He's just airing for the side of sanity from his perspective.
.. it has little to do with the long-term financial health of an entire generation. What has to be accepted by everyone is a fundamental slowdown in Western civilization (particularly in the US and Canada).
For about 100 years there was a continuous and (relatively) steady increase in the "quality of life" here, including longer life spans, higher incomes, more liesure time, etc. This is coming to a head now, with the peak earning years of the Baby Boomers. This is the group of people that will go down in history as the luckiest and most previleged ever.
What has happened is that during the earning time of the Boomers, a time when society as a whole should have been saving up, we have instead been spending. Now we have trillions in shared debt that has to be paid off eventually. Going forward from here, the cost to support our society is going up (because the average person is getting older), so the people who drive the society (the next generation) are going to receive less.
I don't see our society doing drastic action like cutting support to the Boomers at this time: they are still the most powerful generation and will stop any attempt to lessen their priveledge. Today's (and tomorrows) taxpayers will support the Boomers into old age, and I believe that they will bleed the system dry (pulling out far more than the next generations can put in).
If you think that things are rough out there now, you ain't seen nothin' yet!
BTW, the severity of this crunch in the future will depend on how quickly the Boomers are cut off. Like I said, I (pessimistically) believe that it won't be allowed to happen until the bottom has already completely fallen out. It will take a very strong and brave administration to be able to accomplish anything else.
I'll agree with most of your points, but one in incorrect: there is no incentive on the part of hardware manufacturers to remove the ability to turn Palladium off. Sure, they'll build in the ability to have it on (so you can run Windows XXXp), but why would they voluntarily isolate their market for non-DRM enabled products? That seems to be rather foolish.
Your last paragraph is the accurate one: the ability to turn it off will be removed only with legislation.
Still, with the intent to turn all computers into sealed boxes, you've got to know that lots of hardware makers will follow the lead of Apex and start including "secret" menus that "weren't supposed to be there." Also, the volume of identical but "DRM disabled" hardware shipped to Canada will grow tremendously.
It will take a long time for the CBDTPA to pass into law. It will take longer still for a "standard" to be agreed upon and implemented. The optimist in me says that by the time all this happens, the current crop of "legal" uses for computers will be commonplace, and any attempt to remove them will be resisted by *everyone*, not just geeks. Then the law will be quietly shuffled to the side, unenforced until it is finally struck down as unconsitutional.
A very good point, skip EULA'd software and skip the audit. So you tell the BSA that you don't own (and certainly didn't register) any of their software. You never agreed to an audit. Now go away!
Do they take you at face value? Or do they press for an audit? I'll ask again: has there ever been a case where the BSA has used the legal system to *force* their way through a business' door? And what happens if they shut down your operation, confiscate all your computers, and find nothing but Free software?
I'd say their ass gets sued!
One thing that film still has going for it is *ease of making prints*. With film, the average Joe takes the film to the photo shack, returns in an hour, and has permanent prints forever.
With digital, you have to own a computer, photo printer, and image processing software. You transfer files to your computer, manipulate the size, use expensive pre-cut photo paper (or make up sheets and cut yourself), etc. It's time consuming and the average Joe doesn't want to do any of this!
I've seen a few photo shops allow you to bring in your CompactFlash / Smartmedia card and they make a set of prints for you (you follow the same steps as you would with a roll of film). This is the *right* way to go, but there aren't many places that do this and it is substantially more expensive.
Until this sorts out, film certainly has its place with the computer-hating crowd.
Not accountants alone. The process is they show up with, if necessary, federal marshals who will tell you to "step back from the terminal." They are carrying little things at their sides which encourage compliance.
Precisely my question: has this ever happened? I'm really curious if a case of "licence infringement" has actually resulted in an audit which was *forced* on a business!
I've read lots of stories here on organizations (City of Virginia Beach comes to mind) that have been served with a letter from the BSA about the status of their licences. But has there EVER been an actual raid on an organization?
I ask this because it seems to me if a squad of accountants from the BSA showed up on the door of my business, I would say "Go away, I'm busy!" For their threats to mean anything, they would have to get a warrant from a judge. Which would require reasonable grounds for search and seizure. Which would require the actions of the police.
I think that we would all have heard of such an event by now, if it has happened. If it has (and I missed it), please let me know.
I assume the audits in question are carried out voluntarily because the business cannot risk that the BSA may do exactly what I describe above. The impact of preparing for the audit is less than the impact of having your office shut down (perhaps indefinately) by a police search. If you were then found to be in compliance, would you have legal recourse against the BSA?
Add to the above the oft-repeated "run as root" issue. It's not just that the users may find themselves victims of viri-to-come, it also reflects badly on Linux as a whole once this happens. The newbie using Lindows will curse Linux just the same as Windows in this regard.
.. just don't punish me for "unrestricting" the content.
It's been said before: trying to restrict copying and usage has always been legal. But it has never been effective. If it doesn't interfere with the users' experience, it's trivial to break. If it actually accomplishes its goals, it's such a pain that it is rejected in the open market.
What the DMCA did was essentially outlaw the ability to break trival protections. Technically, you can still break them and use them yourself, but telling anyone else about how you did it is like trafficing drugs or guns now.
It seems that this bill is over-reacting in the other direction by *requiring* the ability to back up data (ie. removing protections). As such, it probably does swing the pendulum too far in the other direction.
All I really want is to see the portions of the DMCA which are unconstitutional (restrict freedom of speech) to be revoked. This way, trivial restrictions would not be protected by law, media companies would have no hammer to beat on hardware manufacturers, and the market will be free to react as they did with DIVX.
Neither this bill nor Boucher's will pass, because there is no huge lobby (or $$) for this cause like Hollywood has. Still, it's good to go forward anyways, since raising public awareness is the only shot we have to change the industry's mind.
Actually, introducing this now (when it might possibly be made into an election issue) is a great idea, as the public is paying a bit more attention to politics than usual and is less likely to be completely ignored by mainstream press (a la DMCA).
BTW, *two* bills that seek to accomplish roughly the same thing? Why?
Why is it that all of these manufacturers use the same 5400 and 7200 rpm speeds for their drives? Why couldn't one manufacturer put out their drives at, say, 6000 and 8000 rpm (from a marketing standpoint, this would be beneficial: kind of like Intel using MHz as a benchmark for comparative "performance" against AMD).
Is there a good reason for this uniformity across manufacturers? Do they use the same motors from a 3rd party supplier? What gives?
I guess ATi decided that it wasn't worth putting the IEEE1394 Firewire port on the card, like the AIW 8500 DV. But I guess most people would be putting this card on a newer mobo, and more and more of them are supporting Firewire directly. Makes sense, I guess.
Just like with Dmitry, the "target" will always be a publicly unsympathetic, unsavoury hacker-type.
The precident that the RIAA/MPAA chooses to permit to proceed to the Supreme Court will only be the one that they have the maximum chance of success with. Until then, they are satisfied with the chilling effect and scare tactics, and in the case where there are civil/criminal charges laid, they will be dropped if they figure out halfway through that this is not the *right* case to go to the wall with.
That's the frustrating part: the Constitutionality of the DMCA will not be determined until a case regarding it is heard by the Supreme Court, but the case on which it is presented is one that the court will be loathe to find in favour of free speech. But, we can hope.
Hope you don't expect to be connecting over the standard consumer DSL or Cable providers' lines. In case you haven't read most of the "acceptable use" agreements lately, you will *not* be permitted to run these services out of your box. They'll be sniffing for open ports, and you'll probably get nailed for violating their terms of service.
Then again, if the reason that you're looking to do this on the cheap is because you're plowing all your cash into a higher-end pipe that permits servers, never mind!
You are describing the home PC, and you are absolutely right: Linux is far away from mainstream here for all the reasons you stated.
The enterprise is another story. On the server end, Linux is already well placed and gaining installations. And why not? It's stable, secure, robust, and free from nasty licences and restrictions.
On the desktop, they're getting there too. Windows will always be a better desktop OS, but the *gap* between a Linux desktop and Windows is narrowing all the time. Add to this the advantages of customizability, licencing (again), and the fact that corporations tend to frown on users installing their own new "scanner or digital camera or video card" into their PCs, a Linux desktop looks like a great platform for a corporate desktop (after it matures a bit more).
And, of course, the enterprise is where the real money is made by Microsoft (not the home users) So, I disagree with your statement: Microsoft is (or should be) *plenty* concerned with the advancement of Linux.
Bottom line, I expect *many* large corporations will be MS-free within two years. At home, it will happen more gradually, but the increased penetration at work will slowly drive home installations, too.
The thing is that Windows will always have more polish than any Linux desktop. But it is the *gap* between Windows and open desktops that is shrinking. Soon (within a couple of years, IMHO), there will be many large corporations who will likely take the plunge with Linux as their standard desktop environment because:
All of these items are linked to cost to the enterprise. As soon as it is proven (and obvious to all) that there is little downside to perceived productivity and huge upside in reduced costs, the migration will begin. And I haven't even mentioned the issue of freeing your data from proprietary formats: as important as this is, most organizations haven't been stung by it yet and don't see it as critical.
Patience is all that is required. Well, that and fighting against the only thing that *can* keep MS in their current dominant position: government legislation handcuffing open software. You can bet that they're quietly trying to figure out how this can be accomplished!
If it is a derivative work of GPL'ed code (and it certainly looks that way), then the subsequent work MUST be also GPL'ed.
It still doesn't mean they have to distribute the end product.
However, I agree with the previous post that it there does not appear to be any reason NOT to re-release the code, as long as someone else hosts/maintains the work.
So as long as DRM is reasonable about fair use, stops the majority of people from doing the wrong thing (and can more-or-less keep up with the bleeding-edge crackers)...
Almost by definition, this cannot happen. Any DRM scheme that works to its publishers desires will be undesirable to anyone who wants to purchase the content.
So basically, you probably will not be distributing your work electronically for the forseeable future. Which means that instead of earning some money from legitimate downloads of your work (and putting up with some illegitimate copying), *all* of the electronic distribution of your work will earn you *nothing*. Just so you know....
Just think about all the things in life you enjoy and most exist because at some time someone or company made money creating it.
/. really want to see all copyright/patent laws thrown into the crapper. What rankles everyone here is that here, in an age where the advancement of technology and culture is expanding faster than at any time in history, we have information that is devalued and commoditized very, very quickly. However, the rights of users is getting more restricted while the copyright is in force, and the time it takes for the people to freely benefit (copyright expires) is getting *longer*, not shorter.
This is exactly the issue. Not many people here at
The way the laws are heading, "the things in life I enjoy" will be under the thumb and benefiting its "creators" (ha!) generations after the actual artists who created the work are dead. Are you saying that copyright laws are being improved so that dead artists will be encouraged to create?
The anonymous donation is not to advocate repealing these concepts of law, but rather to reign in the unnecessary expansion of these laws.
I'd say that very few of these (or any) "high profile" patent cases EVER make it to a jury or judge to render a decision. (An obvious exception is the BT hyperlink patent, but that wasn't in N. America.) Well before that time, it will already be obvious which way the decision will come down, and one of two things will happen:
1) In the case where the plantiff will prevail, the defendant will quietly licence the technology from the patent holder;
2) In the case where the defendant will prevail, the plantiff will quietly drop the suit.
This happens because to continue to a verdict will only cost both sides more time and legal fees.
Unfortunately, it also serves to continue the status quo. Until one of these cases gets really nasty in public and goes to a decision (and then likely appeals), then there will be no pressure placed on the patent system to reform.
Why? Because with open hardware, you can run closed software or open software, and the hardware won't care. With *closed* hardware, you can be sure that open software won't run.
For all the talk about security of Palladium, my belief that the project's primary objective is to attack open software. Their attempts to directly compete against it and discredit it have failed. This initiative will attempt to remove open software entirely from any new hardware built to these specs. And make no mistake: most new hardware will be made with Palladium if MS can pull this off. The hardware manufacturers can't afford to put out product that will not run the latest Windows OS.
On top of that, MS has three more trump cards with this setup. They can play them if the above scenario is not enough and any/all of the following occur:
1) Open software is made to run on Palladium hardware, DRM and all - MS asserts its patent on a "DRM operating system". This would be used to sue anyone who tries to make OSS work on *any* hardware. They would demand royalty fees that are untenable to an OSS coder and the product disappears.
2) Open software is made to run on Palladium hardware by bypassing/breaking the DRM - the DMCA would be used to sue or criminally charge the "offenders".
3) OSS has enough penetration that there will still be a substantial market for "open" hardware - Palladium will likely be declared the standard on which the CBDTPA will be based. This means that it will eventually be illegal to distribute hardware that is not Palladium compliant.
Result: OSS survives by running on obsolete computers only, or illegally on newer computers, and the enthusiasm slowly disappears.
Depressing, I know, but it's amazing what market penetration and a few laws can do.