Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th...
Heay man! Don't go dissing the 3rd Amendment!
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it's the only part of the Bill of Rights that Supreme Court has never had to address. Chuckle.
a handy reference to check your own thought processes
OK.
Bandwagon effect: Well I'm rather a non-conformist and I'm quite often on and arguing the unpopular side, so that's probably not an issue for me.
Bias blind spot: Well I don't have that problem, so I didn't bother reading any further.
Chuckle. P.S. I noticed something slightly odd. Except for Self-fulfilling-prophecy and Color-psychology being notably out of place, it is clearly three concatenated alphabetical lists. P.P.S. All the "n."'s were a bit redundant and pointlessly repeated again and again. They were kinda repetitititive too.
Apologies for the the confusion. Your English was perfect. In fact I didn't even notice you weren't a native English speaker. If I had realized, I might have been more careful about humorously "correcting" your non-error.
I was making a joke, a pun on "patent nonsense", joking that the proper way to read it was as just another item in the list of problems with OOXML.
When I said "I'm sure it's merely a typing error" I meant it the way someone might replace one word with a completely different word and call "an obvious typo, the keys are like right next to each other". In fact when I wrote it I realized it was unclear (unclear even to native English speakers, so again no fault on your reading of English). I wanted to add something to more clearly flag it as humor, but I couldn't think of any good way to do it. I hate overstating humor, and sometimes I err on the side of understated humor. I just figured someone would mod it funny and that would clearly flag the understated intent.
Huh? Unless I'm missing something Taco made no mention of left vs right, nor did he say anything reasonably interpretable as involving partisan politics whatsoever. In fact at the moment most pf the posts here seem to be about TrueCrypt, and the one-any-only post I can find from anyone that can even be remotely interpreted with a partisan implication is that the anti-crypto attempts "started trying in the 90s under Clinton's reign, with Al Gore as the point man... over 10 years later, I guess it's time for another round of facists to try it again". If anything, that would tie this sort of attack to the left, and the "another round of facists" is entirely ambiguous or entirely non-denominational as the rapidly approaching "next round of facists" is a tight presidential race between Dems and Pubs.
Maybe it's just an anomaly, but I've been seeing a bit of a repeating pattern lately. Borderline paranoid delusional people with a persecution complex about partisan political bias. They themselves are wildly biased, and it takes the form of baseless accusations of opposite bias, even against entirely non-political non-partisan statements complete strangers. They literally just imagine things and hang them on other people like Christmas tree ornaments, and by themselves imagining biased things about the other person it somehow "proves" that other person biased.
It was pretty interesting when someone went on a "bias" rant against me with all sorts of stuff that came out of their own imagination, especially when they managed to effectively toss in an accusation that I was sexist. A really neat trick considering that no one had even menentioned gender prior to that point. Chuckle.
One of the critical aspects to creating and protecting extreme bias is psychological filtering, uncritically embracing anything that serves that bias, and finding ways to automatically disregard anything that might challenge that position. For example if you decide someone is wildly biased and everything they say is completely unreliable, and they say 23+38=61, you don't have to waste any thought seeing if it's true or not. The source is "biased", therefore one can automatically send the untrustworthy information to the trash heap without wasting any mental effort evaluating it at all.
Baseless accusations of bias are themselves bias, are themselves a powerful psychological mechanism of creating and perpetuating that person's own bias.
I have some speculations on why I think this might currently be a particularly common issue, but such speculation would be particularly fertile ground for bias and accusations of bias. Heh.
Using the "fast-track" for a "standard" that is over 6000 pages, incomplete, with literally thousands of objections to it, and for which there exist -zero- implementations is patent nonsense
I'm sure it's merely a typing error, but the words 'and' and 'is' are in the wrong spots and I think you meant to say 'preposterous' at the end.
Using the "fast-track" for a "standard" that is over 6000 pages, incomplete, with literally thousands of objections to it,[] for which there exist -zero- implementations, and patent nonsense is preposterous
You make it sound like the problem is that what you suggest doesn't exist yet. The problem is that the industries are so terrified of the new internet technology that they are desperately clinging to every snake-oil scheme promising to slay the internet dragon. And so long as they are obsessed with slaying the dragon, they are entirely unwilling to make the best of the technology that is trivially available to them.
If they wanted to do ad-supported TV shows exactly like on TV, the only thing they would have to do is post a torrent of each episode complete with commercials, in MPEG AVI or other normal (non-DRM) format. That's it, just post a torrent and add some comment permitting UNMODIFIED distribution.
Part of the reason they don't do it is because it is challenging to track the ad views (not that it's really any harder than tracking ad views on broadcast TV), but really the main reason they don't do it is because they are afraid someone will take the posted torrent, strip out the commercials, and make that version available. The internet dragon they want to slay. Which is an absolutely delusional reason because people are already taping the broadcast versions, stripping the commercials, and posting that. There is no for them not to post a LEGAL commercial-bearing torrents on an easy and well designed website dedicated to each TV show and capturing some of those eyeballs that are downloading the episodes anyway.
Yeah people don't like commercials, but they *do* like having a reliable guaranteed quality source for their shows. A network episode website could be a way better experience than searching "black market" sites with unpredictable downloads. And many people also will much prefer the peace of mind of a legal source than worrying about participating in an illegal torrent. If they stopped trying to FIGHT the technology, and simply offered the best product and best experience they can (subject to commercials or a paid download), they would capture much or most of the market that is downloading anyway.
Trying to compete with "free" can be a headache, but it can be done. Deliberately making your product worse with DRM schemes, deliberately crippling their own product and trying to competing with free and better is just plain stupid. The only thing stupider than that is trying to compete with "free" by refusing to sell to the download market at all.
As far as selling the content, again they don't really need anyone to supply them with some new solution. They can trivially take a website to sell stuff and simply sell non-DRM downloads. For music they could simply buy or copy the old AllOfMp3.com (now mp3sparks.com) and "fix" the prices. For selling TV/movie downloads, they could either do the exact same thing or harness a trivial modification of BitTorrent for it. To do that you run the exact same pay-download site, but you supply tiny torrent files embedded with a small crypto signature binding it to the download IP address and possibly the date. The torrent client checks that a requesting peer must have a valid crypto-signed key to obtain the particular movie or TV show. And of course the company authorizes redistribution to P2P peers who present a valid crypto-signed key to request that file.
Again, the industry is afraid that someone will take that file and dump it on an unrestricted torrent. Again, refusing to sell their product at all in this way is completely irrational, because their product is ALREADY getting dumped onto unrestricted torrents anyway. There is this irrational idea that SELLING DRM-free downloads somehow is (or becomes) the dragon that they desperately want to slay. It isn't. It doesn't create of supply the dragon. The dragon is out there anyway, even if they don't sell those downloads. By selling those downloads they aren't supplying the dragon - they are bleeding away from the dragon. If you want people to buy your product, do your best to sell them exactly what they want to buy. Don't deliberately attempt to sell in inferior cr
But frankly I am sick of people using [1]piracy, [2]porn, and [3]kiddie porn as examples of "protecting free speech".
[1] Saying the same thing someone else said is indeed speech. Prohibiting someone from saying the same thing someone else said is indeed an infringement of the right to Freely Speak. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled as such. The reason Fair Use is such a complex and gray area is exactly because the courts have such a difficult time reconciling the fact that "piracy" is indeed a Free Speech issue along with the fact that the Constitution permits congress, if they choose to do so, to promote progress by denying people exactly this area of freedom of speech.
So yes, it is an abridgment of the Freedom of Speech. One which is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.
Note that there is absolutely no RIGHT to copyright. It is merely PERMITTED to create copyright. All copyright rights can and would vanish immediately if congress merely repealed the relevant laws. Further note that I am making no argument here about what should be done. I am simply stating the situation, that "piracy" is indeed a "Free Speech issue", a constitutionally permissible infringement of that right.
[2] Gee, we don't like pictures of Mohammad, we find them offensive, therefore we can and will put people in prison for it. Gee, we don't like pictures of BOOBIES, we find them offensive, therefore we can and will put people in prison for it.
How is your logic any different or any better than the logic of Shari Islamists?
Porn is indeed a Free Speech issue, the Supreme Court has even explicitly ruled as such. The last refuge of the Free Speech violators is to REDEFINING Free Speech not-to-include anything they dislike, with absolutely no basis other than that they dislike it.
[3] I have a totally unreasonable proposal. How about we have the police spend their time tracking down and imprisoning people who commit the actual act of arson, an actual criminal physical act, and not running around in some neurotic crusade hunting down people who collect newspaper clipping photos of arsons?
Note that you're not even suggesting any change in the law... several tens of millions of people are already technically felons under existing US law (N.E.T. act). This is merely a suggestion that we start enforcing current law. Why should there be any push additional copyright laws and stronger international treaties, when we aren't bothering to enforce the copyright laws that already exist?
Note that people are currently UNAWARE that this is what the law already says, UNAWARE that the law declares them, or some member of their family or friends, to be criminal felons facing to up to five years in prison.
Yes, if the government starts imprisoning a couple of thousand people, this will be huge news and the population will absolutely take notice that current law says they are felons, or that their family and friends are felons, and that they are starting to get locked up. The reaction would be Huge. HUGE. The reaction would hardly be limited to the enormous impact on Pirate Bay usage. It would bring a tsunami change in social attitudes and politics and law relating to copyright and copyright infringement.
something that doesn't really negatively affect consumers unless the content provider wishes so.
Wrong. It is something that doesn't really negatively affect consumers unless... unless Microsoft implements it. DUH! That's why people are bitching at Microsoft. If Microsoft didn't do this STUPID and HARMFUL thing, no one would be complaining right now about the malicious failure of their routine TV recording. People using VCRs or Tivo or other products are not running into problems. Only people stuck with defective-by-design Microsoft devices are getting screwed over. Getting screwed over by Microsoft. Sure the idiots broadcasting the flag along with the TV shows get some of the blame, that is stupid as well. However they aren't actually doing anything to anyone. They can shout "don't record this" until they are blue in the face... and it doesn't mean squat. They have absolutely no legal right to prevent people from recording it. Even if they explicitly say I am forbidden to record it, I still ever legal right to record it. They are merely saying something stupid, something irrelevant, something that is legally null void and total bullshit. It does not matter if they want me to record it or not, it does not matter what they say.
It is Microsoft that is actually doing stuff to people. It is Microsoft that has control and is actively deciding to fuck people over. It is Microsoft actually prohibiting other people's devices from recording.
Without support for DRM in Windows, we wouldn't have the ability to watch things such as blu-ray.
Correction: DRM malware in Windows, companies wanting to make money selling their product would have to sell it in any one of countless normal formats. No one is forcing them to make money, but if they want to make money they obviously have to offer the product in a format that the buyer can actually view. So yeah, again some of the blame goes on the content industry trying to push blu-ray, but ultimately it is Microsoft that gets the real blame here. Microsoft has no business screwing over their customers and abusing their monopoly position to cram anti-owner malware into the operating system.
You could go and download the HD movies you want (like I'm sure most people here do), but if you want to make a good faith effort to stay on the "legal" side of things, these technologies need to be in place by Microsoft.
No, they don't. If media companies want to sell their products, then they can sell it on vinyl records or audio cassettes or videocassettes or MP3 or MPEG or AVI any of countless other normal formats.
If they refuse to sell in audio cassette format or videocassette format or MP3 format or MPEG format or AVI format or any of countless other normal formats, well refusing to sell a product is their choice, no sale.
If they try to sell in blu-ray defective-by-design unplayable-by-design format (or DRM music or whatever), well most likely I'll skip it completely. However if they refuse to accept my money to buy an MP3 song or MPEG-or-whatever HD movie, and the only only available source for a legitimate non-defective product is "free", yeah, there's a chance I'll download the free version.
Just for the record, some people talk hot-air about not wanting to buy bad products and go ahead and buy them anyway.... well I own a VCR and some videocassettes, however I absolutely REFUSE to buy a defective-by-design DVD player and I absolutely REFUSE to buy any DVDs. And if I never bo
Slashdot Mirror
Why is the 2nd amendment more important than the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th...
Heay man! Don't go dissing the 3rd Amendment!
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it's the only part of the Bill of Rights that Supreme Court has never had to address. Chuckle.
-
a handy reference to check your own thought processes
OK.
Bandwagon effect: Well I'm rather a non-conformist and I'm quite often on and arguing the unpopular side, so that's probably not an issue for me.
Bias blind spot: Well I don't have that problem, so I didn't bother reading any further.
Chuckle. P.S. I noticed something slightly odd. Except for Self-fulfilling-prophecy and Color-psychology being notably out of place, it is clearly three concatenated alphabetical lists. P.P.S. All the "n."'s were a bit redundant and pointlessly repeated again and again. They were kinda repetitititive too.
-
Apologies for the the confusion. Your English was perfect. In fact I didn't even notice you weren't a native English speaker. If I had realized, I might have been more careful about humorously "correcting" your non-error.
I was making a joke, a pun on "patent nonsense", joking that the proper way to read it was as just another item in the list of problems with OOXML.
When I said "I'm sure it's merely a typing error" I meant it the way someone might replace one word with a completely different word and call "an obvious typo, the keys are like right next to each other". In fact when I wrote it I realized it was unclear (unclear even to native English speakers, so again no fault on your reading of English). I wanted to add something to more clearly flag it as humor, but I couldn't think of any good way to do it. I hate overstating humor, and sometimes I err on the side of understated humor. I just figured someone would mod it funny and that would clearly flag the understated intent.
-
Huh? Unless I'm missing something Taco made no mention of left vs right, nor did he say anything reasonably interpretable as involving partisan politics whatsoever. In fact at the moment most pf the posts here seem to be about TrueCrypt, and the one-any-only post I can find from anyone that can even be remotely interpreted with a partisan implication is that the anti-crypto attempts "started trying in the 90s under Clinton's reign, with Al Gore as the point man... over 10 years later, I guess it's time for another round of facists to try it again". If anything, that would tie this sort of attack to the left, and the "another round of facists" is entirely ambiguous or entirely non-denominational as the rapidly approaching "next round of facists" is a tight presidential race between Dems and Pubs.
Maybe it's just an anomaly, but I've been seeing a bit of a repeating pattern lately. Borderline paranoid delusional people with a persecution complex about partisan political bias. They themselves are wildly biased, and it takes the form of baseless accusations of opposite bias, even against entirely non-political non-partisan statements complete strangers. They literally just imagine things and hang them on other people like Christmas tree ornaments, and by themselves imagining biased things about the other person it somehow "proves" that other person biased.
It was pretty interesting when someone went on a "bias" rant against me with all sorts of stuff that came out of their own imagination, especially when they managed to effectively toss in an accusation that I was sexist. A really neat trick considering that no one had even menentioned gender prior to that point. Chuckle.
One of the critical aspects to creating and protecting extreme bias is psychological filtering, uncritically embracing anything that serves that bias, and finding ways to automatically disregard anything that might challenge that position. For example if you decide someone is wildly biased and everything they say is completely unreliable, and they say 23+38=61, you don't have to waste any thought seeing if it's true or not. The source is "biased", therefore one can automatically send the untrustworthy information to the trash heap without wasting any mental effort evaluating it at all.
Baseless accusations of bias are themselves bias, are themselves a powerful psychological mechanism of creating and perpetuating that person's own bias.
I have some speculations on why I think this might currently be a particularly common issue, but such speculation would be particularly fertile ground for bias and accusations of bias. Heh.
-
somewhat controversially changed its vote to "Yes".
For the benefit of those who may not have been following this issue closely, black holes somewhat suck.
-
Congress. If we burned them down every time [] they passed unconstitutional laws
Well, that would certainly limit the rate at which they do so.
-
Using the "fast-track" for a "standard" that is over 6000 pages, incomplete, with literally thousands of objections to it, and for which there exist -zero- implementations is patent nonsense
I'm sure it's merely a typing error, but the words 'and' and 'is' are in the wrong spots and I think you meant to say 'preposterous' at the end.
Using the "fast-track" for a "standard" that is over 6000 pages, incomplete, with literally thousands of objections to it, [] for which there exist -zero- implementations, and patent nonsense is preposterous
-
if I used my native grammar in English, I'd sound like Yoda.
This is Slashdot, you'de probably get modded up for it.
-
High-temperature female displays well-hydrated feline!
Hot babe shows wet pussy, ok, pretty standard fare there...
Amazing pseudoadults with brobdignagian dorsal features!
Teens with huge tits on their backs??
Whoa dude, that's some seriously kinky porn.
I don't even think there's a Usenet group for that.
Yet.
-
Slashdot needs a say what? mod option.
This has already been considered but not implemented, because no one has been able to figure out whether it would be a Score +i or a Score -i mod.
-
I didn't self-censor, I copied and pasted. In hindsight, I should have fixed that.
Even worse. You propose censorship-of-another, copying someone else's speech and rewriting it to censor out any *'s.
Recursive irony.
-
Sure it does.
It may be only 32 people, but they're Basement Dwellers Of Unusual Size.
-
It also helps politicians pander to ignorant members of the right.
I got mod points, but can't find the +1 Redundant option.
-
MWNWTA.
The Make Water Not Wet Trade Agreement.
-
You make it sound like the problem is that what you suggest doesn't exist yet.
The problem is that the industries are so terrified of the new internet technology that they are desperately clinging to every snake-oil scheme promising to slay the internet dragon. And so long as they are obsessed with slaying the dragon, they are entirely unwilling to make the best of the technology that is trivially available to them.
If they wanted to do ad-supported TV shows exactly like on TV, the only thing they would have to do is post a torrent of each episode complete with commercials, in MPEG AVI or other normal (non-DRM) format. That's it, just post a torrent and add some comment permitting UNMODIFIED distribution.
Part of the reason they don't do it is because it is challenging to track the ad views (not that it's really any harder than tracking ad views on broadcast TV), but really the main reason they don't do it is because they are afraid someone will take the posted torrent, strip out the commercials, and make that version available. The internet dragon they want to slay. Which is an absolutely delusional reason because people are already taping the broadcast versions, stripping the commercials, and posting that. There is no for them not to post a LEGAL commercial-bearing torrents on an easy and well designed website dedicated to each TV show and capturing some of those eyeballs that are downloading the episodes anyway.
Yeah people don't like commercials, but they *do* like having a reliable guaranteed quality source for their shows. A network episode website could be a way better experience than searching "black market" sites with unpredictable downloads. And many people also will much prefer the peace of mind of a legal source than worrying about participating in an illegal torrent. If they stopped trying to FIGHT the technology, and simply offered the best product and best experience they can (subject to commercials or a paid download), they would capture much or most of the market that is downloading anyway.
Trying to compete with "free" can be a headache, but it can be done. Deliberately making your product worse with DRM schemes, deliberately crippling their own product and trying to competing with free and better is just plain stupid. The only thing stupider than that is trying to compete with "free" by refusing to sell to the download market at all.
As far as selling the content, again they don't really need anyone to supply them with some new solution. They can trivially take a website to sell stuff and simply sell non-DRM downloads. For music they could simply buy or copy the old AllOfMp3.com (now mp3sparks.com) and "fix" the prices. For selling TV/movie downloads, they could either do the exact same thing or harness a trivial modification of BitTorrent for it. To do that you run the exact same pay-download site, but you supply tiny torrent files embedded with a small crypto signature binding it to the download IP address and possibly the date. The torrent client checks that a requesting peer must have a valid crypto-signed key to obtain the particular movie or TV show. And of course the company authorizes redistribution to P2P peers who present a valid crypto-signed key to request that file.
Again, the industry is afraid that someone will take that file and dump it on an unrestricted torrent. Again, refusing to sell their product at all in this way is completely irrational, because their product is ALREADY getting dumped onto unrestricted torrents anyway. There is this irrational idea that SELLING DRM-free downloads somehow is (or becomes) the dragon that they desperately want to slay. It isn't. It doesn't create of supply the dragon. The dragon is out there anyway, even if they don't sell those downloads. By selling those downloads they aren't supplying the dragon - they are bleeding away from the dragon. If you want people to buy your product, do your best to sell them exactly what they want to buy. Don't deliberately attempt to sell in inferior cr
But frankly I am sick of people using [1]piracy, [2]porn, and [3]kiddie porn as examples of "protecting free speech".
[1] Saying the same thing someone else said is indeed speech. Prohibiting someone from saying the same thing someone else said is indeed an infringement of the right to Freely Speak. The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled as such. The reason Fair Use is such a complex and gray area is exactly because the courts have such a difficult time reconciling the fact that "piracy" is indeed a Free Speech issue along with the fact that the Constitution permits congress, if they choose to do so, to promote progress by denying people exactly this area of freedom of speech.
So yes, it is an abridgment of the Freedom of Speech. One which is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.
Note that there is absolutely no RIGHT to copyright. It is merely PERMITTED to create copyright. All copyright rights can and would vanish immediately if congress merely repealed the relevant laws. Further note that I am making no argument here about what should be done. I am simply stating the situation, that "piracy" is indeed a "Free Speech issue", a constitutionally permissible infringement of that right.
[2] Gee, we don't like pictures of Mohammad, we find them offensive, therefore we can and will put people in prison for it.
Gee, we don't like pictures of BOOBIES, we find them offensive, therefore we can and will put people in prison for it.
How is your logic any different or any better than the logic of Shari Islamists?
Porn is indeed a Free Speech issue, the Supreme Court has even explicitly ruled as such. The last refuge of the Free Speech violators is to REDEFINING Free Speech not-to-include anything they dislike, with absolutely no basis other than that they dislike it.
[3] I have a totally unreasonable proposal. How about we have the police spend their time tracking down and imprisoning people who commit the actual act of arson, an actual criminal physical act, and not running around in some neurotic crusade hunting down people who collect newspaper clipping photos of arsons?
-
If they imprison a thousand people (preferably worldwide) for copyright infringement, TPB usage will plummet.
I fully support your proposal. It would indeed be the fastest most effective most powerful way to end this copyright/piracy fight.
Note that you're not even suggesting any change in the law... several tens of millions of people are already technically felons under existing US law (N.E.T. act). This is merely a suggestion that we start enforcing current law. Why should there be any push additional copyright laws and stronger international treaties, when we aren't bothering to enforce the copyright laws that already exist?
Note that people are currently UNAWARE that this is what the law already says, UNAWARE that the law declares them, or some member of their family or friends, to be criminal felons facing to up to five years in prison.
Yes, if the government starts imprisoning a couple of thousand people, this will be huge news and the population will absolutely take notice that current law says they are felons, or that their family and friends are felons, and that they are starting to get locked up. The reaction would be Huge. HUGE. The reaction would hardly be limited to the enormous impact on Pirate Bay usage. It would bring a tsunami change in social attitudes and politics and law relating to copyright and copyright infringement.
-
wonder if Wiki-joke-pedia will fix that no longer true statement.
I don't even bother to check.
You obviously don't even bother to fix it either.
-
I shall repost it properly formatted with your permission:
Permission denied.
Pay him $150,000.
-
Why is everyone blaming Microsoft?
Well duh, because Microsoft did something bad. And stupid.
While the broadcast flag is certainly not a required thing to honor, it is something the content providers wanted
That's nice.
So what?
Content providers want me not to go to the bathroom during commercials either.
Who gives a shit? (Pardon the pun.)
something that doesn't really negatively affect consumers unless the content provider wishes so.
Wrong.
It is something that doesn't really negatively affect consumers unless... unless Microsoft implements it.
DUH!
That's why people are bitching at Microsoft.
If Microsoft didn't do this STUPID and HARMFUL thing, no one would be complaining right now about the malicious failure of their routine TV recording. People using VCRs or Tivo or other products are not running into problems. Only people stuck with defective-by-design Microsoft devices are getting screwed over. Getting screwed over by Microsoft.
Sure the idiots broadcasting the flag along with the TV shows get some of the blame, that is stupid as well. However they aren't actually doing anything to anyone. They can shout "don't record this" until they are blue in the face... and it doesn't mean squat. They have absolutely no legal right to prevent people from recording it. Even if they explicitly say I am forbidden to record it, I still ever legal right to record it. They are merely saying something stupid, something irrelevant, something that is legally null void and total bullshit. It does not matter if they want me to record it or not, it does not matter what they say.
It is Microsoft that is actually doing stuff to people. It is Microsoft that has control and is actively deciding to fuck people over. It is Microsoft actually prohibiting other people's devices from recording.
Without support for DRM in Windows, we wouldn't have the ability to watch things such as blu-ray.
Correction:
DRM malware in Windows, companies wanting to make money selling their product would have to sell it in any one of countless normal formats. No one is forcing them to make money, but if they want to make money they obviously have to offer the product in a format that the buyer can actually view.
So yeah, again some of the blame goes on the content industry trying to push blu-ray, but ultimately it is Microsoft that gets the real blame here. Microsoft has no business screwing over their customers and abusing their monopoly position to cram anti-owner malware into the operating system.
You could go and download the HD movies you want (like I'm sure most people here do), but if you want to make a good faith effort to stay on the "legal" side of things, these technologies need to be in place by Microsoft.
No, they don't.
If media companies want to sell their products, then they can sell it on vinyl records or audio cassettes or videocassettes or MP3 or MPEG or AVI any of countless other normal formats.
If they refuse to sell in audio cassette format or videocassette format or MP3 format or MPEG format or AVI format or any of countless other normal formats, well refusing to sell a product is their choice, no sale.
If they try to sell in blu-ray defective-by-design unplayable-by-design format (or DRM music or whatever), well most likely I'll skip it completely. However if they refuse to accept my money to buy an MP3 song or MPEG-or-whatever HD movie, and the only only available source for a legitimate non-defective product is "free", yeah, there's a chance I'll download the free version.
Just for the record, some people talk hot-air about not wanting to buy bad products and go ahead and buy them anyway.... well I own a VCR and some videocassettes, however I absolutely REFUSE to buy a defective-by-design DVD player and I absolutely REFUSE to buy any DVDs. And if I never bo
29 Aug 2008: Judgment day. Skynet launches an all-out nuclear strike on both NBC and Microsoft.
-
I'm not sure if the irony was deliberate or not, but you just said "less than a year".
-
DRM and DRM'd media work.
(For sufficiently small values of "work".)
-
The networks probably offered Tivo some money to honor the flag
"Offering money", copyright industry style:
If you do what we tell you to do, we'll let you keep your earnings. Consider it a gift from us to you.
If you don't do what we tell you to do, we will drag you through through endless litigation costing you a million dollars a month(*). If doesn't matter if our cases are bogus or not, we'll run you into bankruptcy. Period. "Hardware maker Sonicblue has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection... The company has been fighting a lawsuit by the entertainment industry over technology in its ReplayTV device that lets people skip commercials.
(*) $1 million per month = $3 million per three months = "Litigation costs, for one, have had a crippling effect on companies like Sonicblue, which spends $3 million a quarter fighting lawsuits, according to Greg Ballard, CEO of Sonicblue, which manufactures ReplayTV. Twenty-eight media companies are suing Ballard's company."
I hope the media industry never "offers me money". I don't think I could afford it.
-
I hear doctors are working on an experimental sense of humor transplant procedure.
Good luck with that.
-