It could also be that bloggers have readers and readers form early perceptions based on what they read. A blogger running Vista on hardware that is suited for Vista is less likely to blog about how slow Vista is and is instead likely to blog about the features that Vista offers. They're also less likely to bitch about the cost.
At this point, everyone knows it's slow on old/current hardware. We know it's expensive. Tell me more about the features, show me some hacks, let mek now if I really want to upgrade or not... give me some decent reporting.
No, this is not a bad thing. In the hands of reasonable parents this should enable kids to have more freedom, if they demonstrate they can handle it. Parents can now let their kids roam about or travel to specific locations and 1) know they can contact them and 2) know they can find them. My parents let me run all over the place when I told them where I was going and when I'd be back... and when I demonstrated that I wasn't lying to them. This technology should allow the same level of freedom with better saftey in case the kid needs help, gets lost, etc. It'd be a lot better to call mom and say... hey mom I got lost or "I need a ride, check out my GPS location"... instead of "mom I'm lost and I don't know where I am."
I hope they make Balls of Steel available. That has to be the funniest show I've seen in months. The Bunny Boiler, Annoying Devil, Big Gay Folllwing and Alex's games are hilarious. Check YouTube out if you haven't seen the show yet.
No slip. Copyrights given to the holder of the copyright are explicit. Fair use rights were clarified and added later. In this discussion people toss around the term "rights" when it comes to what they can do with someone else's intellectual property.
Come by my office at the RIAA and I'll explain it to you.:)
I mixed in an argument made by another poster about abolishing copyight... wich was a mistake... leave copyright intact and allow for DRM and the incentive remains for investing in media works.
So, now that any Joe can make as many copies as he wants for almost zero cost, don't you think it is time for the contract to be renegotiated?
I'm not opposed to renegotiating copyright. In fact that makes sense. I still think we need copyrights, but we need to reduce the copyright back to a reasonable amount of time 20-30 years. We need to clearly define the rights a copyright holder can retain under copyright law, and those that are considered to be fair use.
Good point. You would need a government agency or some type of commercial store house to store each piece of content and release it DRM free after it had expired.
Copyright law says that you cannot make duplicate copies of a piece of media and distribute them. If a company made a movie downloadable from their website, distributable via bittorrent, but would only play for those people who purchased the movie and would freely transfer the playability of the movie to any device owned by that person would that be wrong or a poor use of DRM?
DRM is designed precisely to impose obligations and restrictions on the public that have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, but everything to do with greed and taking away legitimate rights.
How is a company that has invested millions of dollars into a producing a piece of media supposed to protect it's content when it can be digitally reproduced and distributed by anyone to anyone with a $350 PC and a connectiont to the Internet? The answer is DRM! It makes sense... it's not inherently evil. Maybe an implementation of it sucks, but he concept itself is ok.
Star Wars as a performance art peace by your local amateur community theater.
Note that without copyright laws and controls once the media was produced the theaters could show the movie and keep every penny made selling tickets without giving anything back to the people who created it.
Yes. Google is evil. They've become drunk on their stock earnings and intend to use their massive computing capabilities to use up all of the Earth's energy in order to enslave mankind... it's all clear now that the SOAP Search API is gone.
Um... seriously though. Give them a bit of time and see if the make and announcement and publish an alternative (non-AJAX) API.
I made no moral statements. I simply said if you voilate the law, whether your agree with it or not, you still could suffer the consequences. If I don't think it's morally wrong to burn down churches that doesn't mean that I will not be put into prison for my actions.
I support strong DRM and short copyrights, and a requirement to clearly and accurately communicate what rights are transferred to the purchaser at the point of purchase. In the short term, the big media morons will do all sorts of idiotic things to make a few extra bucks... but the end result is likely to be the ability to download massive amounts of content and new and high quality content that didn't exist before, but can exist now because an investment in creating the content could result in a return with strong DRM. Then again... maybe they'd just lease everything to you and you'd have to pay monthly for that Paris Hilton song you love so much:)
So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them.
What are you talking about? Since the inception of copyright you did not have the right to copy a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission. But, the costs made doing this in any large scale impractical and therefore made copyright infringement more uncommon and easier to identify and prosecute... and thereby protect the copyright holder. Low cost and readily available means of duplication and distribution completely blew that inherent protection out of the water. So now copyright is being infringed upon left-and-right.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.
Why is the DMCA inherently evil? The DMCA is NOT the only way to protect the integrity of DRM... and what kind of logical transference principles did you just manufacture here. DRM is not the only way to protect copyright (they've been doing that for years without it). Your logic is laughable and indicative of a anti-DRM fanboi.
Look... I understand that DRM can be used by copyright holders to limit the use of a piece of media and create all types of other fees and crap. I understand that and it's an issue that needs to be considered and looked into. That said... they still have a right to protect the content they've created or invested in. The law says they do... tossing out DRM and copyright all together isn't realistic.
So your point is good, that copyright holders have used the political process to extend their benefits to what seems to be the deterement of everyone else.
That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material. So you can feel free to ignore the law of "criminals" but the reality is that you could still be held accountable, regardless of your own justification.
Wow... the concept of having a 200 page manual on the law... even if that was just the primary law and duty for each citizen, and there were seperate manuals for more complex issues (business for example). That would be outstanding!
It is not the death of the analog media that represents the end of part of our culture--and the risk of lost rights--as the commentary claims. It is the lack...
Everything after that was wrong...
The threat to your "rights" and the rights of copyright holders is low cost digital duplication and distribution. Guess what, 100 years ago copying a book required that you buy the physical materials to print the book on and an expensive printer to print the book. It wasn't cheap. Enter VHS and VCRs... all of sudden where copyright holders had been protected by the high cost of copying their products they're now exposed to easy ultra-low cost duplication means. Enter p2p and you're totally fucked if you create ideas and content and hope to sell it.
The model has been that you create content that people are willing to pay for, and you limit the distribution of that content, and people buy it. If you kill off the ability to limit the distribution of that content then you've killed off the incentive to invest resources into commercial media.
Sure, you'll have all types of mix-ins and exciting mashups and derivative works for the first few years, but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars? The only people with money to invest in expensive media projects that will not return direct profits will be corporations and the rich. Star Wars... in a Ford Focus far far away...
Copyright is good. Protecting it is good. DRM is not inherently evil. Yeah, the media giants are a pain in the ass and generally despicable, but that doesn't make copyright bad and it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be forced to change over time.
I like Sneakers... I don't hate War Games (I've seen it several times). I'm just saying... maybe some of the comments are over the top and soaking in nostalgia.
Slashdot Mirror
It could also be that bloggers have readers and readers form early perceptions based on what they read. A blogger running Vista on hardware that is suited for Vista is less likely to blog about how slow Vista is and is instead likely to blog about the features that Vista offers. They're also less likely to bitch about the cost.
At this point, everyone knows it's slow on old/current hardware. We know it's expensive. Tell me more about the features, show me some hacks, let mek now if I really want to upgrade or not... give me some decent reporting.
Aggghhhh! It's limited to the UK. That would have been great. Thanks anyway. Cheers.
No, this is not a bad thing. In the hands of reasonable parents this should enable kids to have more freedom, if they demonstrate they can handle it. Parents can now let their kids roam about or travel to specific locations and 1) know they can contact them and 2) know they can find them. My parents let me run all over the place when I told them where I was going and when I'd be back... and when I demonstrated that I wasn't lying to them. This technology should allow the same level of freedom with better saftey in case the kid needs help, gets lost, etc. It'd be a lot better to call mom and say... hey mom I got lost or "I need a ride, check out my GPS location"... instead of "mom I'm lost and I don't know where I am."
I hope they make Balls of Steel available. That has to be the funniest show I've seen in months. The Bunny Boiler, Annoying Devil, Big Gay Folllwing and Alex's games are hilarious. Check YouTube out if you haven't seen the show yet.
It's not the application that makes the DRM wrong, it's the details of the rules enforced by the DRM.
I agree with this statement and the rest of your post... excellent clarification.
No slip. Copyrights given to the holder of the copyright are explicit. Fair use rights were clarified and added later. In this discussion people toss around the term "rights" when it comes to what they can do with someone else's intellectual property.
:)
Come by my office at the RIAA and I'll explain it to you.
I mixed in an argument made by another poster about abolishing copyight... wich was a mistake... leave copyright intact and allow for DRM and the incentive remains for investing in media works.
Well reasoned and complete response. thanks.
So, now that any Joe can make as many copies as he wants for almost zero cost, don't you think it is time for the contract to be renegotiated?
I'm not opposed to renegotiating copyright. In fact that makes sense. I still think we need copyrights, but we need to reduce the copyright back to a reasonable amount of time 20-30 years. We need to clearly define the rights a copyright holder can retain under copyright law, and those that are considered to be fair use.
Good point. You would need a government agency or some type of commercial store house to store each piece of content and release it DRM free after it had expired.
Copyright law says that you cannot make duplicate copies of a piece of media and distribute them. If a company made a movie downloadable from their website, distributable via bittorrent, but would only play for those people who purchased the movie and would freely transfer the playability of the movie to any device owned by that person would that be wrong or a poor use of DRM?
DRM is designed precisely to impose obligations and restrictions on the public that have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, but everything to do with greed and taking away legitimate rights.
How is a company that has invested millions of dollars into a producing a piece of media supposed to protect it's content when it can be digitally reproduced and distributed by anyone to anyone with a $350 PC and a connectiont to the Internet? The answer is DRM! It makes sense... it's not inherently evil. Maybe an implementation of it sucks, but he concept itself is ok.
Star Wars as a performance art peace by your local amateur community theater.
Note that without copyright laws and controls once the media was produced the theaters could show the movie and keep every penny made selling tickets without giving anything back to the people who created it.
That's a very very interesting idea. Create some kind of motivation to not keep items under copyright into perpetuity.
REST is great! It's easy to use... I've used Amazon's REST API and liked it a lot.
Yes. Google is evil. They've become drunk on their stock earnings and intend to use their massive computing capabilities to use up all of the Earth's energy in order to enslave mankind... it's all clear now that the SOAP Search API is gone.
Um... seriously though. Give them a bit of time and see if the make and announcement and publish an alternative (non-AJAX) API.
I made no moral statements. I simply said if you voilate the law, whether your agree with it or not, you still could suffer the consequences. If I don't think it's morally wrong to burn down churches that doesn't mean that I will not be put into prison for my actions.
:)
I support strong DRM and short copyrights, and a requirement to clearly and accurately communicate what rights are transferred to the purchaser at the point of purchase. In the short term, the big media morons will do all sorts of idiotic things to make a few extra bucks... but the end result is likely to be the ability to download massive amounts of content and new and high quality content that didn't exist before, but can exist now because an investment in creating the content could result in a return with strong DRM. Then again... maybe they'd just lease everything to you and you'd have to pay monthly for that Paris Hilton song you love so much
So our rights were safe as long as we didn't have the means to effectively exercise them.
What are you talking about? Since the inception of copyright you did not have the right to copy a copyrighted work and distribute it without permission. But, the costs made doing this in any large scale impractical and therefore made copyright infringement more uncommon and easier to identify and prosecute... and thereby protect the copyright holder. Low cost and readily available means of duplication and distribution completely blew that inherent protection out of the water. So now copyright is being infringed upon left-and-right.
The DMCA is inherently evil. The DMCA (or something like it) is the only way to protect the integrity of DRM, so DRM must also be evil. If DRM is the only way to protect copyright, then copyright must be evil.
Why is the DMCA inherently evil? The DMCA is NOT the only way to protect the integrity of DRM... and what kind of logical transference principles did you just manufacture here. DRM is not the only way to protect copyright (they've been doing that for years without it). Your logic is laughable and indicative of a anti-DRM fanboi.
Look... I understand that DRM can be used by copyright holders to limit the use of a piece of media and create all types of other fees and crap. I understand that and it's an issue that needs to be considered and looked into. That said... they still have a right to protect the content they've created or invested in. The law says they do... tossing out DRM and copyright all together isn't realistic.
So all people who invest time and money into a non-physical project such as a book, a recorded song, a piece of software are "greedy fucks"?
So your point is good, that copyright holders have used the political process to extend their benefits to what seems to be the deterement of everyone else.
That doesn't mean that you have a legal right to copy copyrighted material. So you can feel free to ignore the law of "criminals" but the reality is that you could still be held accountable, regardless of your own justification.
Wow... the concept of having a 200 page manual on the law... even if that was just the primary law and duty for each citizen, and there were seperate manuals for more complex issues (business for example). That would be outstanding!
Hear hear... a voice of reason amidst a sea of peasant tyrannts.
It is not the death of the analog media that represents the end of part of our culture--and the risk of lost rights--as the commentary claims. It is the lack...
Everything after that was wrong...
The threat to your "rights" and the rights of copyright holders is low cost digital duplication and distribution. Guess what, 100 years ago copying a book required that you buy the physical materials to print the book on and an expensive printer to print the book. It wasn't cheap. Enter VHS and VCRs... all of sudden where copyright holders had been protected by the high cost of copying their products they're now exposed to easy ultra-low cost duplication means. Enter p2p and you're totally fucked if you create ideas and content and hope to sell it.
The model has been that you create content that people are willing to pay for, and you limit the distribution of that content, and people buy it. If you kill off the ability to limit the distribution of that content then you've killed off the incentive to invest resources into commercial media.
Sure, you'll have all types of mix-ins and exciting mashups and derivative works for the first few years, but who is going to invest in the next Star Wars? The only people with money to invest in expensive media projects that will not return direct profits will be corporations and the rich. Star Wars... in a Ford Focus far far away...
Copyright is good. Protecting it is good. DRM is not inherently evil. Yeah, the media giants are a pain in the ass and generally despicable, but that doesn't make copyright bad and it doesn't mean that they aren't going to be forced to change over time.
Ownership should be disregarded, and things should be placed into the public sphere for the enjoyment of all the public.
Why?
Yeah... I always thought is was part of the Liberal Media. When did it change affiliations?
I like Sneakers... I don't hate War Games (I've seen it several times). I'm just saying... maybe some of the comments are over the top and soaking in nostalgia.