There is nothing in Copyright Law that would lend any ability for a publisher of a book to enforce this. Heck, clickthru licences for software are only made legally enforceable by UCITA in the USA, and that's been passed in, what, 1 or 2 states so far?
So far, the only thing that keeps people obeying the terms of EULAs is that publishers generally have more and better lawyers than the users of their content. The fear of getting dragged to court is what forces any compliance.
Of course they are different subjects! But that's not what Hollywood really wants.
The "perfect copy" argument is only a way of trying to win the same battle that they *already lost* in the 80's in the Betamax case. They know that this precident will shoot down any attempts to legislate anti-copying measures of analog recordings, but they're trying again with digital files on this perfect copy BS. They never mention that most illegal MP3s probably sound about the same whether ripped from CD or input from cassette, because that would lessen their case for a need for new laws. Wow, can you imaging the space required for a "perfect copy" of a digitally-broadcast movie?
The arguments being put forward by Hollywood for this legislation are hogwash, they know it and so do we. However, they sound a lot better to their argument than "we need new laws because technology is making it too easy for consumers to avoid our attempts at controlling what they see and hear."
I am one of those "non-technical" project managers you refer to, and I can assure you that your company is a rare breed: one that does not put a "subject matter expert" at the head of project implementations.
However, you should know that the role of a project manager does not mean that he/she should be able to personally implement any of the tasks that need to get done. The PM is, above all, an administrator. The PM's responsibility is to formulate the project plan (with the project team's input), monitor the execution of the tasks, control issues/risks/changes/etc., and manage the hand-off of the project deliverables into the business' day-to-day operations.
Yes, the PM cannot communicate effectively with his/her team unless he/she has at least a clue as to the jobs that each member does. But seriously, a clue is really all the PM needs! Managing a project effectively does not mean being able to step in to give assistance if a project is short-staffed or the deadline is moved up. It means that the PM will *manage* (facilitate more resources if possible, make sure that the project's problems are reported appropriately if not). Ideally, a PM is MORE effective if he/she is not actually doing any of the tasks to completing the project: such tasks tend to be distracting to the (supposedly) primary job of project management. If the project is small, then (again, ideally) the PM should manage more than one project.
It doesn't sound like the PMs in your company are very effective, but that has nothing to do with being non-techies. ANY PM that dictates unrealistic deliverables or deadlines without buy-in from his/her team is a poor PM, regardless of technical know-how.
You also say that you want to be a project manager. Are you willing to let go of your desire to jump into the weeds when you see problems? Because if you don't, I can assure you that other things are going to slip your notice. And what if you are the "superman" who can be cheif-of-all-things on a project? I would be nervous if I was your company's management and your project is critical. If you were to leave the company (for any reason, including an accident), there would be an impossible hole to fill.
A GOOD project manager can effectively manage just about any project, as long as he/she has a clue. This is not to say that you are not a good PM: I'm just saying that project management and technical know-how are mutually exclusive skills.
The author of this rebuttal made an excellent point: software in the Open Source is becoming "mature", not only for server applications but also on the desktop. It does not matter that these products will likely never measure up to the level of proprietary versions of software: once the software is "good enough", it will be adopted by more and more people because it is unencumbered by restrictive and expensive licencing.
It may take awhile longer, but it will happen. Of course, the goal of the proponents of the FUD are hoping to head off this inevitability by legislating Open Source software out of legal existance. To be honest, I think that this really is the only course available to them: Microsoft is going to be in huge trouble (sooner than one may think) if they don't stem the Open Source tide.
..but I don't see it happening. The DMCA was based on giving the United States compliance with the WIPO treaties, and these treaties have finally been ratified by having the 30th country sign on. The EU nations are coming on board, and my own country (Canada) is not far behind. These kind of laws are becoming *increasingly* commonplace. Now that the treaty is ratified, this is now international law, and enforcable across borders of all countries that signed on.
Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA (or changing it to get rid of the really yuchy parts) will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement. Sure it can be done, but why would your government do this (there is obviously no incentive, since they went to the trouble of creating the law only recently)
However, the US does have one possiblity: the Supreme Court has it within their power to knock down the act if they see it as unconstitutional. I think this is the only hope: asking the lawmakers to change this (as Mr. Boucher says he will) is not gonna happen.
It IS possible to avoid paying for a new copy of your software... buy from a Mom & Pop shop that doesn't require you to buy Windows with your PC. Granted you won't legally be able to use your old (preinstalled) copy of Windows on it, that's what shrinkwrapped copies are for.
Or just put your favorite distro on it and forget about it:-)
Do you not agree that the episode of The Outer Limits that you starred in (with Graham Greene) was not just the coolest hour of TV you were involved in?
Sorry, I don't remember the episode name, but to everyone else it involved a distant future where a seriously screwed earth was sending a doomsday weapon to the alein enemy's planet in a final attempt to end the war. Seriously good program.
.. for just accepting "wartime" as an acceptable reason for reducing your liberty. Kind of like sheep: they'll take care of you, just be good and eat your grass.
Freedoms (partially) regained is not the point: the point is injustice done to citizens under the camouflage of "war". BTW, isn't it nice that we (the US and all nations under their thumb) are now engaged in a "war" that seems to have no end? There is no opponent to defeat, there is no way to know if we've won.
We can expect this type of government "shepherd" attitude for a long while, and the "sheep" will not be able to (or even think to want to) do anything about it.
In a utopian world, your take is correct. But I'm afraid that we are moving to a more Orwellian future than you think.
Citizen-friendly lawmakers? How far did Nader get in the last election? The "mainstream" parties will continue into the forseeable future, with no real differences between them. Corporate interest will be bought and paid for regardless of the party in power.
Laws repealed by courts? Maybe, but don't count on it given how the DeCSS case went. Even if the Supreme Court does strike them down, I wouldn't put it past the conglomerates and Congress to amend the Constitution, if that's what's required to control "free" speech.
Users choose not to purchase? You're assuming there will be an alternative (DIVX vs DVD). It will soon be the only choice.
Of course users will break the technology. And they'll keep it to themselves because they'll go to JAIL if they don't!
But you are partially right: DRM has no benefits to end users, and no one wants it. But resist it? Not likely. The quiet 99% will swallow what the industry & government tell them, and the other 1% will either keep their mouths shut or be prosecuted.
I was thinking the same thing. What this "story" smells of is a PR job by Red Hat. Notice how Red Hat are saints, and not a whiff of any other Linux vendors (or IBM, or whoever)?
I am VERY surprised to see this type of writeup at Anandtech. I am used to detailed, objective testing, and the occasional factual commentary that at least resembles journalism. This is a piece of fluff that would get laughed off my desk if I were in a similar position as this mysterious company.
Ummm, what exactly is ILLEGAL about MP3 encoders and CD-recording software that we can use now? The only main difference is that the XP-included utilities are likely of lower quality than ones you get for free elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing in Copyright Law that would lend any ability for a publisher of a book to enforce this. Heck, clickthru licences for software are only made legally enforceable by UCITA in the USA, and that's been passed in, what, 1 or 2 states so far?
So far, the only thing that keeps people obeying the terms of EULAs is that publishers generally have more and better lawyers than the users of their content. The fear of getting dragged to court is what forces any compliance.
Of course they are different subjects! But that's not what Hollywood really wants.
The "perfect copy" argument is only a way of trying to win the same battle that they *already lost* in the 80's in the Betamax case. They know that this precident will shoot down any attempts to legislate anti-copying measures of analog recordings, but they're trying again with digital files on this perfect copy BS. They never mention that most illegal MP3s probably sound about the same whether ripped from CD or input from cassette, because that would lessen their case for a need for new laws. Wow, can you imaging the space required for a "perfect copy" of a digitally-broadcast movie?
The arguments being put forward by Hollywood for this legislation are hogwash, they know it and so do we. However, they sound a lot better to their argument than "we need new laws because technology is making it too easy for consumers to avoid our attempts at controlling what they see and hear."
I am one of those "non-technical" project managers you refer to, and I can assure you that your company is a rare breed: one that does not put a "subject matter expert" at the head of project implementations.
However, you should know that the role of a project manager does not mean that he/she should be able to personally implement any of the tasks that need to get done. The PM is, above all, an administrator. The PM's responsibility is to formulate the project plan (with the project team's input), monitor the execution of the tasks, control issues/risks/changes/etc., and manage the hand-off of the project deliverables into the business' day-to-day operations.
Yes, the PM cannot communicate effectively with his/her team unless he/she has at least a clue as to the jobs that each member does. But seriously, a clue is really all the PM needs! Managing a project effectively does not mean being able to step in to give assistance if a project is short-staffed or the deadline is moved up. It means that the PM will *manage* (facilitate more resources if possible, make sure that the project's problems are reported appropriately if not). Ideally, a PM is MORE effective if he/she is not actually doing any of the tasks to completing the project: such tasks tend to be distracting to the (supposedly) primary job of project management. If the project is small, then (again, ideally) the PM should manage more than one project.
It doesn't sound like the PMs in your company are very effective, but that has nothing to do with being non-techies. ANY PM that dictates unrealistic deliverables or deadlines without buy-in from his/her team is a poor PM, regardless of technical know-how.
You also say that you want to be a project manager. Are you willing to let go of your desire to jump into the weeds when you see problems? Because if you don't, I can assure you that other things are going to slip your notice. And what if you are the "superman" who can be cheif-of-all-things on a project? I would be nervous if I was your company's management and your project is critical. If you were to leave the company (for any reason, including an accident), there would be an impossible hole to fill.
A GOOD project manager can effectively manage just about any project, as long as he/she has a clue. This is not to say that you are not a good PM: I'm just saying that project management and technical know-how are mutually exclusive skills.
Darren Best, PMP
The author of this rebuttal made an excellent point: software in the Open Source is becoming "mature", not only for server applications but also on the desktop. It does not matter that these products will likely never measure up to the level of proprietary versions of software: once the software is "good enough", it will be adopted by more and more people because it is unencumbered by restrictive and expensive licencing.
It may take awhile longer, but it will happen. Of course, the goal of the proponents of the FUD are hoping to head off this inevitability by legislating Open Source software out of legal existance. To be honest, I think that this really is the only course available to them: Microsoft is going to be in huge trouble (sooner than one may think) if they don't stem the Open Source tide.
..but I don't see it happening. The DMCA was based on giving the United States compliance with the WIPO treaties, and these treaties have finally been ratified by having the 30th country sign on. The EU nations are coming on board, and my own country (Canada) is not far behind. These kind of laws are becoming *increasingly* commonplace. Now that the treaty is ratified, this is now international law, and enforcable across borders of all countries that signed on.
Getting rid of this is now going to be seriously difficult. Repealing the DMCA (or changing it to get rid of the really yuchy parts) will equal the US pulling out of a ratified international agreement. Sure it can be done, but why would your government do this (there is obviously no incentive, since they went to the trouble of creating the law only recently)
However, the US does have one possiblity: the Supreme Court has it within their power to knock down the act if they see it as unconstitutional. I think this is the only hope: asking the lawmakers to change this (as Mr. Boucher says he will) is not gonna happen.
Darren Best
It IS possible to avoid paying for a new copy of your software... buy from a Mom & Pop shop that doesn't require you to buy Windows with your PC. Granted you won't legally be able to use your old (preinstalled) copy of Windows on it, that's what shrinkwrapped copies are for.
:-)
Or just put your favorite distro on it and forget about it
Darren Best
Do you not agree that the episode of The Outer Limits that you starred in (with Graham Greene) was not just the coolest hour of TV you were involved in?
Sorry, I don't remember the episode name, but to everyone else it involved a distant future where a seriously screwed earth was sending a doomsday weapon to the alein enemy's planet in a final attempt to end the war. Seriously good program.
.. for just accepting "wartime" as an acceptable reason for reducing your liberty. Kind of like sheep: they'll take care of you, just be good and eat your grass.
Freedoms (partially) regained is not the point: the point is injustice done to citizens under the camouflage of "war". BTW, isn't it nice that we (the US and all nations under their thumb) are now engaged in a "war" that seems to have no end? There is no opponent to defeat, there is no way to know if we've won.
We can expect this type of government "shepherd" attitude for a long while, and the "sheep" will not be able to (or even think to want to) do anything about it.
Lovely.
debest
In a utopian world, your take is correct. But I'm afraid that we are moving to a more Orwellian future than you think.
Citizen-friendly lawmakers? How far did Nader get in the last election? The "mainstream" parties will continue into the forseeable future, with no real differences between them. Corporate interest will be bought and paid for regardless of the party in power.
Laws repealed by courts? Maybe, but don't count on it given how the DeCSS case went. Even if the Supreme Court does strike them down, I wouldn't put it past the conglomerates and Congress to amend the Constitution, if that's what's required to control "free" speech.
Users choose not to purchase? You're assuming there will be an alternative (DIVX vs DVD). It will soon be the only choice.
Of course users will break the technology. And they'll keep it to themselves because they'll go to JAIL if they don't!
But you are partially right: DRM has no benefits to end users, and no one wants it. But resist it? Not likely. The quiet 99% will swallow what the industry & government tell them, and the other 1% will either keep their mouths shut or be prosecuted.
Lovely.
Darren Best
I seem to recall that the DMCA was "justified" because it was written to be compliant with the WIPO / WTO treaties that the U.S. signed.
Does anyone know if these international treaties proposed anything like the restrictions called for in the SSSCA?
I was thinking the same thing. What this "story" smells of is a PR job by Red Hat. Notice how Red Hat are saints, and not a whiff of any other Linux vendors (or IBM, or whoever)?
I am VERY surprised to see this type of writeup at Anandtech. I am used to detailed, objective testing, and the occasional factual commentary that at least resembles journalism. This is a piece of fluff that would get laughed off my desk if I were in a similar position as this mysterious company.
Ummm, what exactly is ILLEGAL about MP3 encoders and CD-recording software that we can use now? The only main difference is that the XP-included utilities are likely of lower quality than ones you get for free elsewhere.