If two out of three are going to be released for current OSes, then I dont think MS has scaled back at all, infact I think they have excelled themselves in getting the features into updates for a current OS rather than relying the public to update. Saying they have scaled back plans is basically crap, based on that list you give.
How about this: most of the laws they are trying to 'buy' are the result of people not playing fair with their copyrighted material. If we ALL play fair with each other, Im betting that the RIAA wouldnt need to 'buy' laws any more than we need to complain about it. Its not all one sided you know, actual infringement is rife on the internet.
So why dont you also add to the sticker "Obtaining all your music legally exempts you from lawsuits"? Personally, I think that stickering someone elses property is akin to vandalism, and Im not impressed by that page at all. What you seem to be doing is shouting 'The system must change' without actually proposing a system THAT WOULD WORK. Theres nothing at all stopping you from creating such an alternative system, and nothing at all stopping you from signing up bands to your system, its not a 'RIAA or Our system' situation, and its called competition. Until someone does that, Im afraid that noone will seriously listen.
How do you get four times as much life playing games than watching movies? Explain how that's possible.
Chances are that the movie player doesnt buffer the movie file, so the microdrive is constantly spinning. THe games are sufficient that once loaded, most probably rarely touch the disk, allowing it to spin down.
Neither means anything. The RIAA 'spies' can get the fact that you are advertising the content for download from the trackers. Your 'IP blocker' and the source code do not mitigate this fact.
Apple, for example, is going to get raked over the coals for not "giving back to the community" as long as they decline to offer OS X for x86 under the GPL.
Firstly, I see no reason WHY apple should offer OS X for X86 under the GPL, since the platform they took it from in the first place was under the BSDL. Secondly, they offer Darwin, the Unix part of OS X under a generally free license anyway. Thirdly, Apple give plenty back to the community in the way of OSS updates (look at the khtml updates they have offered back). All in all, OS X basically gets its niceness from the Aqua GUI, the Unix subsystem is pretty nice but Darwin on its own isnt anywhere near OS X. Aqua had no basis in free software, so I see no reason why Apple should offer this for free in anyway shape or form. And why should the RIAA offer anything to the community? Im honestly baffled as to why you think the RIAA owes the community anything.
Nope, its been openly stated on slashdot before (and other places) that Bit Torrent is no more safer than Kazaa or Gnutella, due to the fact that you can get a list off of all trackers of who is sharing what file (duh, else how are you going to connect to them?)
If you do this for music from a label under the RIAA then you are STILL COMMITTING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. In most cases, the 'artist' doesnt own the copyright for the work, the label does, so paying the artist does not settle you with the copyright owner. If you want to do this, then dont do it with mainstream artists.
Sorry, I shouldnt have sworn at you, I do apologise, had a hard day yesterday. You are right whith the narrow examples you gave, but I was concentrating on the here and now. The copyright infringement that is rife at the moment (mass downloading of material from the internet) hurts people, and it hurts them in the way I have shown. I do have a natural right to exclude others from usage of my ideas, just in the same way I have a natural right to stop someone taking my garden gnomes off my front lawn or protect my kids from abuse. In this day and age, to live in a civilised country, I agree not to kill anyone I catch doing the above, in return for protection from the government from the above 'crimes', whether its laws against copyright infringement or laws against physical theft.
Your reasoning is persuasive tho, and youve just earnt yourself a slashdot friend.
Did chernobyl happen all my itself, or did it happen as a result of human interaction with uranium? The thread was discussing the 'safety' of coal verses nuclear power, and thats what my post was about. The fact of the matter is that modern reactor designs cannot go supercritical like chernobyl did, its a limitation of the design and the laws of physics.
You have a seriously fucked up mind if you think its ok to take someones work and cheat them out of the result of that work. I did not mean usage to be excluding others from using... wait a fucking minute, yes I did. How would you like it if in your place of work one of your colleagues started taking all the credit for the hardwork you put in? I created that idea, its revolutionary/entertaining, its good, its going to make me a millionaire, why SHOULDNT I be allowed to exclude other people from using it, regardless of whether its a physical invention or words on a bit of paper or light on a TV screen somewhere.
Authors spend weeks, sometimes months coming up with a bestseller, directors sometimes strive long and hard to come up with the next blockbuster movie, music labels spend loads of money supporting and promoting new and current acts (contrary to popular beleif, few acts put much in themselves, most just turn up when told and sing the lyrics someones written for them).
Why should a pimply kid someplace get to use the fruits of those labours without recourse? He IS getting something for nothing, and he IS depriving the owners of something, because if hes satisfied with what hes downloaded/copied, 9 times out of 10 hes never going to buy it for real. Oh, people on here like to say 'downloading made me buy....' but YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY, when people get stuff for free, 99% of the time they dont give a fuck about who produced it.
If the 'thief' uses the idea in a situation, then he becomes the first person to do that. That basically excludes the author from being the first in that area.
A demonstration using Journalism. Journalist A gets wind of a great news story, so he does his bit and writes it up. Journalist B takes a copy of Journalist As story and breaks it first in his news paper. Journalist Bs actions has had a real and measurable effect on Journalist As story, because after all, who is going to buy a paper with 'old' breaking news. Journalist B didnt deprive A of anything physical, all he did was take a copy without exerting any real effort on his part.
Yay namecalling. Ignorance isnt an excuse, it wont mitigate the fact that you committed the infringement. What it does do is lessen the punishment, it doesnt alter the verdict.
Id like to see a more rigid Linux Kernel API (so a module doesnt have to be recompiled between kernel maintenace versions), and the 'grey' area of binary modules sorted out as well. I dont think it will happen.
What I think is distuurbing that they want to askt this question. Just start the project and see who is interested. If it is interesting, people will jump aboard. If not, people will not.
Have you seen the number of inactive projects on sourceforge that have done as you suggest? Its plainly clear that this course of action doesnt work, and if they tried it it would only be claimed as another victory by the GPL crowd.
I like how its 'safe' to suggest that MS should opensource Windows, but when someone suggests that Linux should be relicensed to allow the opposite, everyone cries foul. I see no reason why Windows should be made opensource, for the same reason I see no reason why Linux should be made closedsource.
No, they own the origional copyright, so they can license what they want under what license they want. They dont have to opensource everything IE touches if they opensourced IE. Hell, they could pick 10 lines from the WINNT kernel and slap an opensource license on those lines of code without having to give up the entire kernel.
Basically if you are the full copyright owner, the opensource license doesnt apply to you.
You dont exactly expect Microsoft to NOT have anything not COMPLETELY strapped to windows. God forbid, a company having code related to their own product. From what I remember from the slashdot WTL story, the WTL is a special library that people used to pay for, and is a lot better than the standard libraries for what it is used for. Seems a good enough reason to accept it when they opensource it.
Slashdot Mirror
If two out of three are going to be released for current OSes, then I dont think MS has scaled back at all, infact I think they have excelled themselves in getting the features into updates for a current OS rather than relying the public to update. Saying they have scaled back plans is basically crap, based on that list you give.
How about this: most of the laws they are trying to 'buy' are the result of people not playing fair with their copyrighted material. If we ALL play fair with each other, Im betting that the RIAA wouldnt need to 'buy' laws any more than we need to complain about it. Its not all one sided you know, actual infringement is rife on the internet.
Yes they do, dependancies are dependancies and they require a human being to set the dependancy list correctly for each package.
So why dont you also add to the sticker "Obtaining all your music legally exempts you from lawsuits"? Personally, I think that stickering someone elses property is akin to vandalism, and Im not impressed by that page at all. What you seem to be doing is shouting 'The system must change' without actually proposing a system THAT WOULD WORK. Theres nothing at all stopping you from creating such an alternative system, and nothing at all stopping you from signing up bands to your system, its not a 'RIAA or Our system' situation, and its called competition. Until someone does that, Im afraid that noone will seriously listen.
How do you get four times as much life playing games than watching movies? Explain how that's possible.
Chances are that the movie player doesnt buffer the movie file, so the microdrive is constantly spinning. THe games are sufficient that once loaded, most probably rarely touch the disk, allowing it to spin down.
Neither means anything. The RIAA 'spies' can get the fact that you are advertising the content for download from the trackers. Your 'IP blocker' and the source code do not mitigate this fact.
I respectfully disagree.
Apple, for example, is going to get raked over the coals for not "giving back to the community" as long as they decline to offer OS X for x86 under the GPL.
Firstly, I see no reason WHY apple should offer OS X for X86 under the GPL, since the platform they took it from in the first place was under the BSDL. Secondly, they offer Darwin, the Unix part of OS X under a generally free license anyway. Thirdly, Apple give plenty back to the community in the way of OSS updates (look at the khtml updates they have offered back). All in all, OS X basically gets its niceness from the Aqua GUI, the Unix subsystem is pretty nice but Darwin on its own isnt anywhere near OS X. Aqua had no basis in free software, so I see no reason why Apple should offer this for free in anyway shape or form. And why should the RIAA offer anything to the community? Im honestly baffled as to why you think the RIAA owes the community anything.
Nope, its been openly stated on slashdot before (and other places) that Bit Torrent is no more safer than Kazaa or Gnutella, due to the fact that you can get a list off of all trackers of who is sharing what file (duh, else how are you going to connect to them?)
If you do this for music from a label under the RIAA then you are STILL COMMITTING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. In most cases, the 'artist' doesnt own the copyright for the work, the label does, so paying the artist does not settle you with the copyright owner. If you want to do this, then dont do it with mainstream artists.
Sorry, I shouldnt have sworn at you, I do apologise, had a hard day yesterday. You are right whith the narrow examples you gave, but I was concentrating on the here and now. The copyright infringement that is rife at the moment (mass downloading of material from the internet) hurts people, and it hurts them in the way I have shown. I do have a natural right to exclude others from usage of my ideas, just in the same way I have a natural right to stop someone taking my garden gnomes off my front lawn or protect my kids from abuse. In this day and age, to live in a civilised country, I agree not to kill anyone I catch doing the above, in return for protection from the government from the above 'crimes', whether its laws against copyright infringement or laws against physical theft.
Your reasoning is persuasive tho, and youve just earnt yourself a slashdot friend.
Did chernobyl happen all my itself, or did it happen as a result of human interaction with uranium? The thread was discussing the 'safety' of coal verses nuclear power, and thats what my post was about. The fact of the matter is that modern reactor designs cannot go supercritical like chernobyl did, its a limitation of the design and the laws of physics.
You have a seriously fucked up mind if you think its ok to take someones work and cheat them out of the result of that work. I did not mean usage to be excluding others from using ... wait a fucking minute, yes I did. How would you like it if in your place of work one of your colleagues started taking all the credit for the hardwork you put in? I created that idea, its revolutionary/entertaining, its good, its going to make me a millionaire, why SHOULDNT I be allowed to exclude other people from using it, regardless of whether its a physical invention or words on a bit of paper or light on a TV screen somewhere.
Authors spend weeks, sometimes months coming up with a bestseller, directors sometimes strive long and hard to come up with the next blockbuster movie, music labels spend loads of money supporting and promoting new and current acts (contrary to popular beleif, few acts put much in themselves, most just turn up when told and sing the lyrics someones written for them).
Why should a pimply kid someplace get to use the fruits of those labours without recourse? He IS getting something for nothing, and he IS depriving the owners of something, because if hes satisfied with what hes downloaded/copied, 9 times out of 10 hes never going to buy it for real. Oh, people on here like to say 'downloading made me buy....' but YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY, when people get stuff for free, 99% of the time they dont give a fuck about who produced it.
Sounds kind of like the GPL, in a sense. Same outcome anyway.
If the 'thief' uses the idea in a situation, then he becomes the first person to do that. That basically excludes the author from being the first in that area.
A demonstration using Journalism. Journalist A gets wind of a great news story, so he does his bit and writes it up. Journalist B takes a copy of Journalist As story and breaks it first in his news paper. Journalist Bs actions has had a real and measurable effect on Journalist As story, because after all, who is going to buy a paper with 'old' breaking news. Journalist B didnt deprive A of anything physical, all he did was take a copy without exerting any real effort on his part.
You deprive the origional owner of full usage of that idea, if you use it in any way shape or form.
- Actual miners deaths - over 100,000 miners deaths world wide since the 19th century.
- 116 *children* die in slag heap tragedy (here - my father lost his two brothers in this accident)
This is not even mentioning the fact that coal smoke is incredibly toxic and even radioactive.Yay namecalling. Ignorance isnt an excuse, it wont mitigate the fact that you committed the infringement. What it does do is lessen the punishment, it doesnt alter the verdict.
Why not? Redhat do it.
Id like to see a more rigid Linux Kernel API (so a module doesnt have to be recompiled between kernel maintenace versions), and the 'grey' area of binary modules sorted out as well. I dont think it will happen.
What I think is distuurbing that they want to askt this question. Just start the project and see who is interested. If it is interesting, people will jump aboard. If not, people will not.
Have you seen the number of inactive projects on sourceforge that have done as you suggest? Its plainly clear that this course of action doesnt work, and if they tried it it would only be claimed as another victory by the GPL crowd.
and Windows gets open sourced.
I like how its 'safe' to suggest that MS should opensource Windows, but when someone suggests that Linux should be relicensed to allow the opposite, everyone cries foul. I see no reason why Windows should be made opensource, for the same reason I see no reason why Linux should be made closedsource.
No, they own the origional copyright, so they can license what they want under what license they want. They dont have to opensource everything IE touches if they opensourced IE. Hell, they could pick 10 lines from the WINNT kernel and slap an opensource license on those lines of code without having to give up the entire kernel.
Basically if you are the full copyright owner, the opensource license doesnt apply to you.
You dont exactly expect Microsoft to NOT have anything not COMPLETELY strapped to windows. God forbid, a company having code related to their own product. From what I remember from the slashdot WTL story, the WTL is a special library that people used to pay for, and is a lot better than the standard libraries for what it is used for. Seems a good enough reason to accept it when they opensource it.
In this case you arent getting ownership of anything, you are getting permission to download the item and listen to it.