"If we don't supply the information to the United States authorities then we're liable to fines of up to $6,000 per passenger and the loss of landing rights," he said.
"And if we do supply the data, potentially we're breaking the law [on data protection]."
So what are their options? Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?
(Not that this possibility isn't intriguing, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to be a manager in one the major European carriers for the next few months).
I was wondering when someone would notice. I've been cycling through a number of the more bizarre-sounding quotes from VeggieTales for my sig... Congrats on being the first to comment.
Nope, I'm sure the licence agreements are carefully worded to exclude this scenario.
Now, there's nothing stopping someone who paid the licence fee from suing Forgent if they believe that they acted fraudulently in demanding the licencing fee in the first place, but that's a different action.
Perhaps they've fixed that problem since I encountered it about 4 years ago.
It would appear so.
Just a thought, but a lot of things change in 4 years, particularly with computer apps. It's probably wise to verify such things before making statements (or just stating the version of PowerDVD that doesn't work). For instance, WordPerfect 2002 won't run without Admin privs. Does the latest? Don't know. I also don't care anymore, since I run Linux now:-)
Here's a partial list of programs that require admin rights to run (not merely install):........
PowerDVD
Can't attest to any of the other examples you listed (I don't use WMP, and haven't installed any of the others), but I can attest that I use PowerDVD on my limited-priveleges account just fine, thank you.
It is no longer benefiting the public, and as such the public should force their government to make a new set of rules.
The problem is that there is essentially no way for the public to force a new set of rules. The way we have the government set up, lobbyists with money have the ability to get a politician elected/re-elected, so they become the parties that politicians are beholden to, as opposed to their constituents. And aside from cases like Apple vs. Creative (a battle between relative "equals"), the current patent and copyright law benefits the above money-laden interests, as it inhenently gives the advantage to the larger, established entity over the smaller upstart (and thus discourages competition).
I see only two ways that the "intellectual property" regimes will see any significant overhaul:
It becomes demonstratably provable that all this IP overhead is causing our economy to be significantly harmed compared to Asia, coupled with a large percentage of the population accepting this as fact and insisting on making it an election issue (very difficult to do, given the public's disinterest in economic policy and the current corporate media's motivation to maintain the status quo); or
Collapse of the current government structure by armed revolution (something the Founding Fathers would probably say we are overdue for anyway, if they were around to see the US today).
Since neither of these options will occur anytime soon, we'll just have to live with the current situation for the foreseeable future.
The submission is entirely within quotes. "gsch" simply put in a portion of the article into quotes, and sent it to/. It gets posted with another set of quotes. If you look closely, you will see that there are three little marks around the submitted text, not two (meaning a quote within a quote). Could have been formatted better, though.
Politicians, he suggested, "don't know what it is, but they're afraid to be against Net neutrality because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."
Gee, it's nice to see that someone else finds the practice of "biased naming" to be so annoying! Goodness knows, someone in the content industry wouldn't find, oh, "Digital Rights Management" to a better example of something that is named with less obvious bias!
He probably also thinks that there's nothing wrong with the name "USA PATRIOT Act", either.
Or is it just another attempt to "prove" that nobody would "buy stuff" over torrent and that torrent should be shut down 'cause it's only a pirate tool?
Absolutely. This is the only purpose of this exercise: a smokescreen to pay lip-service to Congress that they "tried to offer legal downloads on the Internet", and lobbying for more restrictions because nobody bought it. They know that no one is stupid enough to pay for this, and they want it to fail. I just hope that someone will be able to effectively demonstrate this intent when the industry brings this up at the future hearings for their new laws.
So have it at a tenth of the price of the DVD: $2.
Here's the problem with this: by going the route you suggest, they create the precedent that their movie is not worth $20, but rather $2. Then the genie is really out of the bottle!
Right now, the movie is "worth" $20, and anyone who doesn't wish to run afoul of the law pays that amount. To the rest, it's free, but they're breaking the law so they don't really enter into the legitimate value equation.
With your plan, the majority of law-abiding citizenry starts to see that movies are in fact only "worth" $2, and that they are getting ripped off to the tune of $18 for packaging. Then they might start actually, you know, downloading movies from the Internet (legitimately or not). As I stated in a post earlier, distribution of their content online is diametrically opposed to their business model. They want to discourage it, not encourage it.
That is why they are offering crippled, inferior quality content that uses your bandwidth for the full price of the DVD. They know no one will buy it: It is supposed to be a spectacular flop! Then they can demonstrate how it is "impossible" to use the Internet for legitimate distribution of content. Then they'll lobby Congress to pass more laws forbidding free distribution of content on the Internet.
I like the idea of being able to download DVDs legally from the studios directly. However, I would NEVER pay the same price as the normal DVD and only be able to play the movie on one machine.
That's because they want this initiative to fail. It is explicitly designed to fail, miserably.
Distribution of digital files over the Internet is enemy of the content industry. Their entire business model is built upon keeping the supply of their product scarce. The Internet is frightening to them (and always will be) because scarcity of easily-reproducable data is impossible to maintain on a free Internet. The business model that works for the industry is physical media, purchased one at a time. This way control is maintained. The media industry will never stop trying to prevent the free movement of all data on the Internet, because any data could be their data!
This is a smokescreen, nothing more. The movie studios want to be able to go before congress during the future hearings for ever-more restrictive copyright initiatives, saying "We tried to offer legal online distribution: no one would pay for it! Piracy continues unabated! We need to regulate the Internet! NOW!"
Then they will be able to go back to printing physical copies and stomping on the occasional soul who tries to share a file. In the process, they would like to see ISPs be forbidden to provide customers with actual Internet connections: they would like them to be crippled to prevent anyone from providing any content at all. We should good little consumers and buy what they provide: how dare we be allowed to actually contribute anything! Why, that might make the content industry irrelevant. Horrors!
you've been able to buy the new 2007 GM Denali/Yukon since January of 2006
That reminds me of a fantastic example I saw a few years ago.
I can't remember what car this was (or even the specific year), but I think it was a new Cadillac, model year 2004. I saw an ad for this car in a magazine dated December 2002! It was on the shelf in early November. Yikes! That was the most ludicrous example I've ever seen in automotive marketing.
Agreed. You will always pay way more if you purchase on the bleeding edge. I've often bought things that were "cool" and by the time I actually used it I could've bought a better product for half the price. Buy with a standard DVD (swappable for upgrades, should you find the need to), and I think you'll find you won't upgrade. By the time you trade up to your next laptop, you might possibly find a use for HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
Yes, I know that Darth Vader is Luke's father. And from reading Slashdot, I know that Han shot first (shot who?), that Jar Jar Binks sucks, and that Natalie Portman has something to do with hot grits.
You know, I'm 35 years old (right in the heart of Star Wars fans' age demographic), and a geek as well. Nonetheless, I have not seen a single minute of any of the six movies. Not because I don't think I'll like them (I very likely will), but I just didn't have the access to them in the theatres or at home while I was young (very rural environment). Since then, I've been "holding out" until the right time to watch the series, and the time apparently has finally come!
(Hey, maybe I can stretch this out another 5 years and hear all the "40 year old virgin" jokes!)
In all seriousness, I do want to savour the experience as much as possible. I figure that I should watch the original releases in the order of their production (IV, V, VI, I, II, III). Anyone disagree?
The controller is going to be called the Wii-mote[tm].
Actually, there is already an awesome product on the market called the Weemote. It is the only remote I've found which is simple, and can control a digital box.
Although it was originally made for children, they made a less garishly coloured model called the Weemote Sr. which has been a godsend in our house with my father-in-law (afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease). It's an excellent and durable remote that has allowed him to control the TV again.
(The problem is that the remote that comes with any digital box is far too complicated for him to comprehend. Most importantly, the Weemote doesn't allow him to do anything that he can't undo. With the box's standard remote, he would press "guide" or "info" or "DVD", then not be able to figure out how to get back to his standard operations, that being Channel up/down & volume up/down. He would then invariably throw the remote in frustration and stomp off, and be sullen for hours afterward.)
Sorry for gushing all over this product, but it and the company behind it (Fobis) are really first-rate, and I like to give them props when I can.
Why the hell would consumers want to handle stacks of plastic disks when they can have a jukebox?
Amusingly, a LOT of people like having the stacks of plastic discs. Or more specifically, they like storing the discs in the boxes and displaying the boxes in cabinets & racks for all to see. There is a very substantial component of the population that is not driven by logic and convenience, but instead derives genuine pleasure from surveying their vast collections of belongings where everyone can admire. They're not *wrong*, they're just different. To encode a huge movie and music collection and hide it in a computer is taking away a big part of the experience to these people.
I actually didn't mind Mortal Kombat: sure it was a B-movie, but it was a well-done B-movie. Some of the fight scenes were top notch stuff, and the plot/acting/direction was reasonably entertaining.
Now the sequel, there's another story. Wow, was that awful! I believe that "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is on IMDB's bottom 100 list, and deservedly so.
I'd like to see a test on a tv like i have that does 700 lines, just a general nice TV
First of all, I don't know of any "general nice" TV's that have 700 lines: standard definition for NTSC is 480 lines, PAL is 576 lines.
Does it offer me ANY visible benefit over standard DVD?
Assuming you meant that your TV is NTSC or PAL: there is no point to testing HD-DVD or Blu-ray on either one, because DVD already provides more resolution than either can really handle. In fact, given the HDMI/HDCP connectors that these things require, you may not be able to use these players with your standard TV (not sure, they may provide standard Component/S-video outs if you need to use them, but if so they still couldn't make your TV show anything they aren't capable of showing).
The vast majority of the population just wont care to upgrade if it means they have to buy a $3000+ dollar tv to see the difference.
HDTVs aren't that expensive: you can get a nice 32" HDTV-ready LCD for about $1000 CDN right now, a bit more for "name" brands. But you're still correct: few people will plunk down a wad of cash for negligible benefit. That's why these formats will fail.
You're not wrong about the inflation issue (buying power slowly getting lower), but that still doesn't fully excuse the fact that very few people care about long-term value (durability, service quality) anymore: they will always give their money to the one who gives them the cheapest up-front deal. It doesn't seem to matter if you show them that their "Total Cost of Ownership" (including the intangibles like non-painful customer care) is usually lower when a better product is purchased from a better business. It is so chronic that a business cannot succeed beyond a certain size with the intent of providing higher-end services at fair prices, particularly in highly commoditized markets (such as electronics).
Does anybody have any recommendations for a ThinkPad replacement? A company that makes solid laptops and stands behind them 100%?
Nope. And I think we all saw this coming, too. With the ever-declining emphasis on quality and service in favour of price for every sector, and the market rewarding them for this, I think that this will continue more and more.
When IBM had the ThinkPad line that supplemented its other enterprise offerings, it could afford to emphasize the service end. Now with ThinkPads standing on their own, they have to compete directly with Dell, HP, etc. As with every other product in the Wal-Mart generation, the primary consideration is the initial purchase price: very little else seems to matter with the majority of the the purchasing public. So Lenovo must join the ranks or be watch their business go down the drain.
Until society in general starts to reject low quality and poor service, and pay more upfront for improvement to both, this trend will only get worse.
I've never really understood what's holding up the implementation of.us in the States. Here in Canada, there are a tremendous number of sites that are.ca (some the Canadian sites of a large multinational, others wholly Canadian sites), and there is NO negative stigma atached to a site in the.ca domain. Yes, it's aimed at Canadians: aren't there a great number of American sites aimed at Americans?.com is so over-utilized, you've go to register a 20-character domain to have anything remotely resembling your site's content or image. If you were to have.us opened up for registration, the confusion time and inferiority complex about the TLD would be minimal and fade quickly.
thought breaking DRM was against the law only for copyrighted materials? Once the material is no longer under copyright, there's no issue with breaking it?
Ah, the wonderful DMCA! Here's how it works.
The act of bypassing DRM in order to access content is expressly permitted in the DMCA for fair use purposes, and naturally (as you say) copyright law does not have a problem with you taking actions to get at public domain works either. The key is that the DMCA criminalizes the distribution of tools that are used to break DRM schemes. In other words, you are fully within your rights to break DRM, but you are prohibited from ever telling anyone else how you did it. This is why the DMCA has been called a weapon against free speech.
So if your purchased copyrighted copy of music/movie/whatever falls into the public domain, you still are technically prohibited from being able to do anything new with the content unless you are an engineer and are able to break the DRM yourself, since no one is legally allowed to assist you.
Hell, someone can sell a DRM'ed disc of completely public domain content right now, and you still aren't allowed to use anyone else's help to get at it. Sick, isn't it?
Nothing should force the copyright holder of a piece of software to release the source code: the only work that should be accessable to you after the copyright expires is the binary, not the source.
Here's the analogy to the music business: let's say you compose a piece of music for the piano. You write the composition down on sheet music, so you don't forget. Then you record the music, and sell the music on CD (you never sold the sheet music). Both the sheet music and the recording are copyrighted, but only the recording was distributed. There should not be some obligation on your part to release your sheet music after the copyright expires.
In fact, there's no obligation (nor should there be) to the copyright holders to maintain the content that was distributed, just so that it will fall into the public domain. That would be charitable and ethical to so, but no one is required to be either in our society. I recall reading stories about motion picture production companies many decades ago who would clean out and destroy all of their older films that were about to fall out of copyright, because if they were accidentally released there would be no way to prevent their distribution. This was in an age where copyright actually expired, but also when very few parties but themselves had the realistic ability to obtain and keep copies of films at all. As a result, a lot of culture was lost, but it was the right of the movie companies to act this way if they chose to. If the public wants to benefit from expired-copyright works, it is ultimately up to the public (someone who owns a copy) to make sure that it is not lost: the original copyright owner does not have the responsibitity to see that this happens.
(Of course, the issue of criminal laws that prohibit bypassing DRM in order to get at public domain content is entirely another matter, and one that needs to be fixed.)
Slashdot Mirror
"If we don't supply the information to the United States authorities then we're liable to fines of up to $6,000 per passenger and the loss of landing rights," he said.
"And if we do supply the data, potentially we're breaking the law [on data protection]."
So what are their options? Are the airlines going to have to completely suspend flights to the United States if neither side backs down?
(Not that this possibility isn't intriguing, but I certainly wouldn't want to have to be a manager in one the major European carriers for the next few months).
I was wondering when someone would notice. I've been cycling through a number of the more bizarre-sounding quotes from VeggieTales for my sig... Congrats on being the first to comment.
they are the first commercial software vendor to deliver a Linux application for the masses (acrobat reader doesn't count guys..)
Off the top of my head...
Netscape
Nero Burning ROM
and Wordperfect 2000 from Corel (no longer available).
These are all applications "for the masses" that are/were available for Linux.
Nope, I'm sure the licence agreements are carefully worded to exclude this scenario.
Now, there's nothing stopping someone who paid the licence fee from suing Forgent if they believe that they acted fraudulently in demanding the licencing fee in the first place, but that's a different action.
What version are you running?
:-)
7.0 (latest) on my wife's machine.
Perhaps they've fixed that problem since I encountered it about 4 years ago.
It would appear so.
Just a thought, but a lot of things change in 4 years, particularly with computer apps. It's probably wise to verify such things before making statements (or just stating the version of PowerDVD that doesn't work). For instance, WordPerfect 2002 won't run without Admin privs. Does the latest? Don't know. I also don't care anymore, since I run Linux now
Here's a partial list of programs that require admin rights to run (not merely install): ........
PowerDVD
Can't attest to any of the other examples you listed (I don't use WMP, and haven't installed any of the others), but I can attest that I use PowerDVD on my limited-priveleges account just fine, thank you.
The problem is that there is essentially no way for the public to force a new set of rules. The way we have the government set up, lobbyists with money have the ability to get a politician elected/re-elected, so they become the parties that politicians are beholden to, as opposed to their constituents. And aside from cases like Apple vs. Creative (a battle between relative "equals"), the current patent and copyright law benefits the above money-laden interests, as it inhenently gives the advantage to the larger, established entity over the smaller upstart (and thus discourages competition).
I see only two ways that the "intellectual property" regimes will see any significant overhaul:
Since neither of these options will occur anytime soon, we'll just have to live with the current situation for the foreseeable future.
The submission is entirely within quotes. "gsch" simply put in a portion of the article into quotes, and sent it to /. It gets posted with another set of quotes. If you look closely, you will see that there are three little marks around the submitted text, not two (meaning a quote within a quote). Could have been formatted better, though.
From TFA:
Politicians, he suggested, "don't know what it is, but they're afraid to be against Net neutrality because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."
Gee, it's nice to see that someone else finds the practice of "biased naming" to be so annoying! Goodness knows, someone in the content industry wouldn't find, oh, "Digital Rights Management" to a better example of something that is named with less obvious bias!
He probably also thinks that there's nothing wrong with the name "USA PATRIOT Act", either.
Or is it just another attempt to "prove" that nobody would "buy stuff" over torrent and that torrent should be shut down 'cause it's only a pirate tool?
Absolutely. This is the only purpose of this exercise: a smokescreen to pay lip-service to Congress that they "tried to offer legal downloads on the Internet", and lobbying for more restrictions because nobody bought it. They know that no one is stupid enough to pay for this, and they want it to fail. I just hope that someone will be able to effectively demonstrate this intent when the industry brings this up at the future hearings for their new laws.
So have it at a tenth of the price of the DVD: $2.
Here's the problem with this: by going the route you suggest, they create the precedent that their movie is not worth $20, but rather $2. Then the genie is really out of the bottle!
Right now, the movie is "worth" $20, and anyone who doesn't wish to run afoul of the law pays that amount. To the rest, it's free, but they're breaking the law so they don't really enter into the legitimate value equation.
With your plan, the majority of law-abiding citizenry starts to see that movies are in fact only "worth" $2, and that they are getting ripped off to the tune of $18 for packaging. Then they might start actually, you know, downloading movies from the Internet (legitimately or not). As I stated in a post earlier, distribution of their content online is diametrically opposed to their business model. They want to discourage it, not encourage it.
That is why they are offering crippled, inferior quality content that uses your bandwidth for the full price of the DVD. They know no one will buy it: It is supposed to be a spectacular flop! Then they can demonstrate how it is "impossible" to use the Internet for legitimate distribution of content. Then they'll lobby Congress to pass more laws forbidding free distribution of content on the Internet.
I like the idea of being able to download DVDs legally from the studios directly. However, I would NEVER pay the same price as the normal DVD and only be able to play the movie on one machine.
That's because they want this initiative to fail. It is explicitly designed to fail, miserably.
Distribution of digital files over the Internet is enemy of the content industry. Their entire business model is built upon keeping the supply of their product scarce. The Internet is frightening to them (and always will be) because scarcity of easily-reproducable data is impossible to maintain on a free Internet. The business model that works for the industry is physical media, purchased one at a time. This way control is maintained. The media industry will never stop trying to prevent the free movement of all data on the Internet, because any data could be their data!
This is a smokescreen, nothing more. The movie studios want to be able to go before congress during the future hearings for ever-more restrictive copyright initiatives, saying "We tried to offer legal online distribution: no one would pay for it! Piracy continues unabated! We need to regulate the Internet! NOW!"
Then they will be able to go back to printing physical copies and stomping on the occasional soul who tries to share a file. In the process, they would like to see ISPs be forbidden to provide customers with actual Internet connections: they would like them to be crippled to prevent anyone from providing any content at all. We should good little consumers and buy what they provide: how dare we be allowed to actually contribute anything! Why, that might make the content industry irrelevant. Horrors!
you've been able to buy the new 2007 GM Denali/Yukon since January of 2006
That reminds me of a fantastic example I saw a few years ago.
I can't remember what car this was (or even the specific year), but I think it was a new Cadillac, model year 2004. I saw an ad for this car in a magazine dated December 2002! It was on the shelf in early November. Yikes! That was the most ludicrous example I've ever seen in automotive marketing.
Agreed. You will always pay way more if you purchase on the bleeding edge. I've often bought things that were "cool" and by the time I actually used it I could've bought a better product for half the price. Buy with a standard DVD (swappable for upgrades, should you find the need to), and I think you'll find you won't upgrade. By the time you trade up to your next laptop, you might possibly find a use for HD-DVD or Blu-ray.
Yes, I know that Darth Vader is Luke's father. And from reading Slashdot, I know that Han shot first (shot who?), that Jar Jar Binks sucks, and that Natalie Portman has something to do with hot grits.
Honestly, that is all I know about Star Wars.
You know, I'm 35 years old (right in the heart of Star Wars fans' age demographic), and a geek as well. Nonetheless, I have not seen a single minute of any of the six movies. Not because I don't think I'll like them (I very likely will), but I just didn't have the access to them in the theatres or at home while I was young (very rural environment). Since then, I've been "holding out" until the right time to watch the series, and the time apparently has finally come!
(Hey, maybe I can stretch this out another 5 years and hear all the "40 year old virgin" jokes!)
In all seriousness, I do want to savour the experience as much as possible. I figure that I should watch the original releases in the order of their production (IV, V, VI, I, II, III). Anyone disagree?
The controller is going to be called the Wii-mote[tm].
Actually, there is already an awesome product on the market called the Weemote. It is the only remote I've found which is simple, and can control a digital box.
Although it was originally made for children, they made a less garishly coloured model called the Weemote Sr. which has been a godsend in our house with my father-in-law (afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease). It's an excellent and durable remote that has allowed him to control the TV again.
(The problem is that the remote that comes with any digital box is far too complicated for him to comprehend. Most importantly, the Weemote doesn't allow him to do anything that he can't undo. With the box's standard remote, he would press "guide" or "info" or "DVD", then not be able to figure out how to get back to his standard operations, that being Channel up/down & volume up/down. He would then invariably throw the remote in frustration and stomp off, and be sullen for hours afterward.)
Sorry for gushing all over this product, but it and the company behind it (Fobis) are really first-rate, and I like to give them props when I can.
Why the hell would consumers want to handle stacks of plastic disks when they can have a jukebox?
Amusingly, a LOT of people like having the stacks of plastic discs. Or more specifically, they like storing the discs in the boxes and displaying the boxes in cabinets & racks for all to see. There is a very substantial component of the population that is not driven by logic and convenience, but instead derives genuine pleasure from surveying their vast collections of belongings where everyone can admire. They're not *wrong*, they're just different. To encode a huge movie and music collection and hide it in a computer is taking away a big part of the experience to these people.
I actually didn't mind Mortal Kombat: sure it was a B-movie, but it was a well-done B-movie. Some of the fight scenes were top notch stuff, and the plot/acting/direction was reasonably entertaining.
Now the sequel, there's another story. Wow, was that awful! I believe that "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation" is on IMDB's bottom 100 list, and deservedly so.
I'd like to see a test on a tv like i have that does 700 lines, just a general nice TV
First of all, I don't know of any "general nice" TV's that have 700 lines: standard definition for NTSC is 480 lines, PAL is 576 lines.
Does it offer me ANY visible benefit over standard DVD?
Assuming you meant that your TV is NTSC or PAL: there is no point to testing HD-DVD or Blu-ray on either one, because DVD already provides more resolution than either can really handle. In fact, given the HDMI/HDCP connectors that these things require, you may not be able to use these players with your standard TV (not sure, they may provide standard Component/S-video outs if you need to use them, but if so they still couldn't make your TV show anything they aren't capable of showing).
The vast majority of the population just wont care to upgrade if it means they have to buy a $3000+ dollar tv to see the difference.
HDTVs aren't that expensive: you can get a nice 32" HDTV-ready LCD for about $1000 CDN right now, a bit more for "name" brands. But you're still correct: few people will plunk down a wad of cash for negligible benefit. That's why these formats will fail.
You're not wrong about the inflation issue (buying power slowly getting lower), but that still doesn't fully excuse the fact that very few people care about long-term value (durability, service quality) anymore: they will always give their money to the one who gives them the cheapest up-front deal. It doesn't seem to matter if you show them that their "Total Cost of Ownership" (including the intangibles like non-painful customer care) is usually lower when a better product is purchased from a better business. It is so chronic that a business cannot succeed beyond a certain size with the intent of providing higher-end services at fair prices, particularly in highly commoditized markets (such as electronics).
Does anybody have any recommendations for a ThinkPad replacement? A company that makes solid laptops and stands behind them 100%?
Nope. And I think we all saw this coming, too. With the ever-declining emphasis on quality and service in favour of price for every sector, and the market rewarding them for this, I think that this will continue more and more.
When IBM had the ThinkPad line that supplemented its other enterprise offerings, it could afford to emphasize the service end. Now with ThinkPads standing on their own, they have to compete directly with Dell, HP, etc. As with every other product in the Wal-Mart generation, the primary consideration is the initial purchase price: very little else seems to matter with the majority of the the purchasing public. So Lenovo must join the ranks or be watch their business go down the drain.
Until society in general starts to reject low quality and poor service, and pay more upfront for improvement to both, this trend will only get worse.
I've never really understood what's holding up the implementation of .us in the States. Here in Canada, there are a tremendous number of sites that are .ca (some the Canadian sites of a large multinational, others wholly Canadian sites), and there is NO negative stigma atached to a site in the .ca domain. Yes, it's aimed at Canadians: aren't there a great number of American sites aimed at Americans? .com is so over-utilized, you've go to register a 20-character domain to have anything remotely resembling your site's content or image. If you were to have .us opened up for registration, the confusion time and inferiority complex about the TLD would be minimal and fade quickly.
thought breaking DRM was against the law only for copyrighted materials? Once the material is no longer under copyright, there's no issue with breaking it?
Ah, the wonderful DMCA! Here's how it works.
The act of bypassing DRM in order to access content is expressly permitted in the DMCA for fair use purposes, and naturally (as you say) copyright law does not have a problem with you taking actions to get at public domain works either. The key is that the DMCA criminalizes the distribution of tools that are used to break DRM schemes. In other words, you are fully within your rights to break DRM, but you are prohibited from ever telling anyone else how you did it. This is why the DMCA has been called a weapon against free speech.
So if your purchased copyrighted copy of music/movie/whatever falls into the public domain, you still are technically prohibited from being able to do anything new with the content unless you are an engineer and are able to break the DRM yourself, since no one is legally allowed to assist you.
Hell, someone can sell a DRM'ed disc of completely public domain content right now, and you still aren't allowed to use anyone else's help to get at it. Sick, isn't it?
Nothing should force the copyright holder of a piece of software to release the source code: the only work that should be accessable to you after the copyright expires is the binary, not the source.
Here's the analogy to the music business: let's say you compose a piece of music for the piano. You write the composition down on sheet music, so you don't forget. Then you record the music, and sell the music on CD (you never sold the sheet music). Both the sheet music and the recording are copyrighted, but only the recording was distributed. There should not be some obligation on your part to release your sheet music after the copyright expires.
In fact, there's no obligation (nor should there be) to the copyright holders to maintain the content that was distributed, just so that it will fall into the public domain. That would be charitable and ethical to so, but no one is required to be either in our society. I recall reading stories about motion picture production companies many decades ago who would clean out and destroy all of their older films that were about to fall out of copyright, because if they were accidentally released there would be no way to prevent their distribution. This was in an age where copyright actually expired, but also when very few parties but themselves had the realistic ability to obtain and keep copies of films at all. As a result, a lot of culture was lost, but it was the right of the movie companies to act this way if they chose to. If the public wants to benefit from expired-copyright works, it is ultimately up to the public (someone who owns a copy) to make sure that it is not lost: the original copyright owner does not have the responsibitity to see that this happens.
(Of course, the issue of criminal laws that prohibit bypassing DRM in order to get at public domain content is entirely another matter, and one that needs to be fixed.)