Heh. I love it when people make assumptions to the extreme.
No I would definitely mind if it happened that way. I don't think it would, though. The cause of the SSSCA proposal was that people were trading movies. People weren't trading movies just for shits and giggles, they were doing it to acquire the movies. Hence, demand for movies because they're popular. Had the movies not been popular enough to trade, no SSSCA.
:P
I dunno why I wrote all that, I think you're just pulling my leg. Heh. Fun stuff.:)
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
Your overly simplified metaphor (which illustrates that you don't get my point, you really should have read my sig) is wrong.
It'd be more like this:
I'm still using Linux because I don't think Windows 95 service release 2 is ready for prime time. Windows 95 service release 1 still requires configuration in the Autoexec.bat and Config.sys files to run properly. I doubt they made an interface for it where you can just flip a few switches to make it work.
To which the proper reply should be: "Oh, good news. They did fix that. They did a bunch of work in that area. It may be worth you trying out now."
Instead of this: "FUCKING MORON!! You don't even know what you're talking about since you don't live and breath Windows 95 SR 2. Why don't you just go format your hard drive and then install Windows 95 SR 2 before you try to tell us there's something wrong with it!" Which is basically what you Linux loving dweebs are telling me. Never mind that I'm simply suggesting a little more thought go into the user interface, no no you'd rather attack me because I said there's something Linux could learn from both MS and Apple.
If you're still whinging about my not being 100% up to date before commenting on the incompetance of a product, then just leave it. It is not central to my point. It's responses like these that inspired my signature.
heh that's the second time I've been modded a troll over requests to avoid movie spoilage.
I guess what the moderators really want me to do is say stuff like this:
* Imagine a beowulf cluster of Minority Reports
* I'll never buy this movie on DVD because I run Linux
* Here's a link to the first 3 reviews I found on Google
* This isn't news! I've seen movies before!
and
* The movie's already available for download on Kazaa
Piece of advice...
on
Minority Report
·
· Score: 5, Informative
In the first paragraph of the summary say: "Go see this movie" or "Don't go see this movie".
*afeared of Lone Gunmen Spoilers*
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
"I will reply, and dont want to refute, I know and you know, as do 97% of the ppl who read/. that you dont have a friggen clue what you wrote about."
85% of those people were busy trying to flush my statement instead of trying to understand it. It isn't hard to read what I said and say "Ah, what he wants is for the graphical interface to control the whole machine like Mac and Windows does, versus being (for all intents and purposes) a shell."
KDE or Gnome should be able to hide the Linux prompt completely like OSX hides BSD from the user. The average user should not ever need to get to it. If they can get to that point, then they can start selling at places like Gateway. I should be able to install a new driver EASILY through KDE. I should be able to change my network settings via a simple dialog interface, EASILY. It should all be organized so I can find it, EASILY.
If KDE or Gnome fixed that since the version I mentioned, GREAT! Hallelieuia! I just don't know that they did. What I read about was 'font anti-aliasing'. Oh big important upgrade.
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
If you went back to Windows 2000 because KDE or Gnome was so bad and because you couldn't figure out KDE "because of design work" then you are the type of person that just needs to stick with Windows. -- I used myself as an example, I'm not saying that it needs that to sell me on Linux. New computer users feel threatened by having to type in commands. Linux, if it's going to succeed in the desktop world, needs to be more intuitive with the mouse. In the case of KDE and Gnome, at the time I tried them, they needed a lot of work in that area. It didn't appear as though they spent any time worrying about it. They both had the expectation that I would go mucking around with Linux commands in order to administer it. That's a bad expectation for the market I mentioned.
"Linux is not defined by a GUI." -- It needs to be if it's going to enter the desktop market. It needs a graphical interface that's usabililty is on par with Windows or Mac. Until then, it's just not going to be on the desktop.
Does that mean Linux is dead? No. It just mean Linux won't be sold at Gateway any time soon.
The attitude that 'you should stick with Windows' is a horrible, HORRIBLE attitude to have if you want to expand the Linux userbase and dethrone MS.
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
I would have if the feature list I saw showed any signs of improving the problems I had with it.
I do, however, have a unix seasoned software engineer sitting right behind me right now trying to get Linux running. Getting the network connection to work, for example, is requiring him to go muck around with Linux's prompt. If it takes that just to do a basic network thing (as opposed to a couple of mouse clicks like Windows), then it's not the type of thing that Gateway is going to even be remotely interested in selling to newb customers.
And no, I'm quoting a guy by the name of NanoG. My name is NanoGator.
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
Err no I didn't refute them, I said my info was old.
Too bad you're busy telling me to shut up instead of explaining to me what they did to address those issues since the last release.
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
"How can you make such a strong criticism of KDE or GNOME when you admit you're uninformed?"
Because it was so bad that I went back to Windows 2000.
My point was not to criticize particulars of it, but rather to point out they should be looking at what MS did right and take notes. It's not perfect. They need more evolution in the direction that would make it more attractive to new computer users. That's a valid comment and I'm not taking it back just because I'm a version behind.
If I, somebody who knows Windows backwards and forwards and can support people over the phone with it, has trouble picking up KDE and using it, then it needs some serious design work. I'm not talking bug fixes here.
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
"If you know your claims are uninformed bullshit, then don't make them."
If you can't refute my claims, then don't reply to me.
Hee hee. You're the first person to spot the irony in it. That was intentional.
I got involved in a thread where like 10 or so people all tried to use a metaphor to prove me wrong. All of the metaphors they used were horribly oversimplified and were really not about the point I was trying to make. The worst part was they didn't glance at the other people who had already commented. So I ended up repeating myself 4 or 5 times to explain my side. Eventually I got fed up and put that in the sig, hoping they'd get the point.
Pity I ran into a character limit though. I could have made the irony of it a little more pronounced.
lol @ Godwin's law. -- thanks for mentioning that, I learned something new today.
I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a better example. I really did try to come up with a better/less extreme example.:)
I'm just saying that if the USA was really out to get all our freedoms taken away, things would be drastically different. We'd have real strict laws about what can be published on the internet. The ID card would be around right now. TV would be nothing but commercials for the miliatry.
Instead what I see are trigger happy military types wanting extremist action, and the Gov't and the people are saying "no, that's too far". So there's lots of bickering
Frankly, I'm comforted by the bickering. I was really worried that 9-11 would have really locked down our freedoms, but I'm not seeing much of that. The example I used in another post here is that Portland had the Rose festival a couple of weeks ago. We had military ships from USA and Canada docked here. They put up barracades, restricted accesss, and had fewer ships. To my surprise, though, you could still board them.
One thing that you have done though, and I appreciate this, is that you've shown me that I do take some things for granted. I live in a 'Nar, there are enough people defending my rights that no matter what happens, I'll be okay.' world.
I needta break out of that. It is reaaaally easy to be comfortable in USA.
Re:Shoud we care about desktop linux?
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
"Does it really matter to you if Linux on the desktop never takes off? I prefer being in the 1% users"
The downside, though, is that your favorite games are going to be on PC.
If the game industry were to recognize Linux as a gaming OS, then the benefits would be alarming. For one thing, driver support for Linux would be heaps better. We'd start seeing products that have Linux drivers right on the CD's. Imagine that.
It'd take something like "Linux working as a desktop OS" to get that ball rolling. If it did, you may even find products make specifically for Linux.
Bigger Audience = Better Support and more innovation
Re:FOLKS - READ ARTICLE *BEFORE* COMMENTING
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 2
The big problem with KDE and Gnome right now is that they're still not ready for prime time. I used them both for a bit and was really annoyed at how hard it was not only to find configuration options, but at how unrefined it felt. (Note: The version I used came with Redhat 6... or maybe 6.2. I'm not claiming my info's up to date. I know new versions of both are out now.)
This is not an attack on those programs, it's a criticism. If the average user ever has to get to a command prompt, then it fails.
I'm not saying they're unusuable, I'm saying that they need some more evolution in order to reach the mass 'I bought my computer at Gateway' market. Lots of people are quick to point out what Windows does wrong, not enough are examining what they did right.
There are lots of things about Windows that are comforting to a new computer user. For example, ever see this message: "These are system files, you really don't want to play around in here." It's an annoyance to advanced users, but to a new user it's comfort. "Oh, Windows won't let me break it by accident."
Anyhoo, I can imagine I'm going to burn karma over these comments. Again I'll say that I'm not saying "MS good Linux bad", I'm just saying that it's still a little behind.
I wish the RIAA would just set up a database where I can put in my CD and go to their site. They look at the CD, determine the songs on it, and build a database of the songs I have legally acquired. Then, I can take the MP3's that I've grown attached to, have them check the identifier on them, and send me a bill for the licenses I need to have them.
What's great about this idea is that people could buy songs without bandwidth overhead to the RIAA. Give me that ability, and the RIAA may start getting money from me again. In the mean time, I visit the pawn shop alot.
I don't think most people can rip a damaged CD. All you're doing is giving the RIAA the ability to screw you on the replacement. "yep, that's a damaged CD. Buy another one."
"Since they can't make any money from legal file-sharing they couldn't care less if they kill it as long as they sell more CDs."
They're not actually trying to make money from it. That's why I'm offended by them for trying to shut down P2P. They're making drastic assumptions about what people will do instead of seeing it as a goldmine.
I might actually be sympathetic if they were offering an affordable service.
"I don't see how you can "use the same arms against them", because they are not attempting to download copyrighted content from your computer (-; What they are doing is NOT really a "DoS" attack, but rather, exploiting the fact that the system relies on anonymity."
Hmm. I had DoS in mind when I wrote that. I don't have an issue with them putting fake files on P2P. That's their perogative. The funny thing is that'll blow up in their face if they ever try to legitimize digital downloads. All it'll do is drive people into the underground to trade stuff. IRC, for example.
Right now, Kazaa is a nice huge collection of users. If Hollywood were to say "Download Attack of the Clones for $5 @ 1280 by 1024 resolution", people would FLOCK to it. (well they would if it were a good movie, heh.)
If they drive people underground, they won't have a centralized way to tap potential customers.
I really wasn't thinking about this when I wrote my post about 'using their own arms against them', but it does seem to fit, doesn't it?
"Frankly, I see this as a serious flaw to the DMCA. It creates provisions for fair use, but doesn't define them. So really, anybody can twist the wording to their own ends. Imagine if gun laws were like that. It'd be like "You can own a gun,
I apologize, I hit 'submit' instead of 'preview'. Let it be documented that I'm a dome ass.
Continuing:... It'd be like "You can own a gun, you may not shoot it unless: 1.) You are in danger. 2.) It's for educational purposes. 3.) You aren't aiming to harm. 4.) You have permission from the victim to be shot."
Personally, I think it's better the way it is now: You may not kill people. You may not endanger people. You may not scare people. You have the right to have it and defend yourself.
I know, I'm oversimplifying, but hopefully my point comes across. DigitalConsumer.Org really struck a chord with me by defining what we can do with our digital rights. It seems like if those rights were passed into law, then the RIAA could clearly define what a 'pirate' really is. Only then would they be able to take steps to stop them.
They wouldn't be able to, for example, make un-backupable CD's. They wouldn't be able to put up fake files on P2P. And they wouldn't be able to make accusations against Apple for their 'Rip Mix and Burn' campagin, that'd be defamation.
I can see things making a whole lot more sense after that. Of course, the RIAA would have to develop a digital licensing database to know who can do what.
I heard a story of a guy who put razorblades around his stereo. A would-be thief sued him over it and won.
There's another story about a guy who boobytrapped his wallet. When he was pickpocketed, it exploded and blew the thief's hands off. The 'victim' got to pay the handless thief for the rest of his life. (Note: That may be an urban legend.)
The law doesn't allow you to do things like that. I can only guess at the reason.
It seems to me that a DoS (yes I know that's not what the article's about, don't wast your time telling me I didnt read it) attack on P2P would fall under that law. If anybody does get attacked in any way by the RIAA, they could probaby take them to court and teach them a lesson.
What really irks me is that the law conflicts a bit. If I have the right to make a backup of a CD, shouldn't that allow one to make that backup available to others? The MPAA/RIAA calls that piracy. I don't call it piracy until somebody retrieves the backup who hasn't paid for a license.
I bought the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition a few years ago. The tapes disappeared when I moved. I didn't sell them, they just.. well.. gone! The MPAA thinks that I should pay for the Star Wars Triology again if I want to watch it again. I think I should be able to download it if somebody was nice enough to backup their copy.
The law supports both what I think and what the MPAA/RIAA thinks. It is for this reason, that I do not believe that either of these organizations should be given the ability to pass judgement against me. Instead, USA should do what DigitalConsumer.org suggestions: Create a set of rights for internet users.
If the law says 'you can backup your media', then the RIAA cannot sue me for having an MP3 copy of a song from a CD I purchased. Since an MP3 is a backup copy (can't play an MP3 in the standard CD Player...), then transmitting it to somebody else isn't a crime. It's not my job to judge who's licensed and who isn't. That's between the RIAA and whoever is violating it.
Frankly, I see this as a serious flaw to the DMCA. It creates provisions for fair use, but doesn't define them. So really, anybody can twist the wording to their own ends. Imagine if gun laws were like that. It'd be like "You can own a gun,
"Read the damn article! It's not saying that they can ping-flood P2P networks"
Actually I did read the article. My comment stands. It was a way of saying "if they take arms in enforcing copyrights, they may find those same arms used against them."
You might have pulled that out of my comment if you weren't busy trying to correct me for the sake of looking intelligent.
"The difference is that stealing music is not covered by your fair use rights."
It's not their place to judge. Since our rights aren't defined in this area, then all they can do is attack this little guy and that little guy.
A guy stealing a car is a theif. A guy uploading an MP3... well that's a little different, isn't it? What if the person on the other end downloading it owns the song? This is the type of case that could go on for quite a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I love it when people make assumptions to the extreme.
:)
No I would definitely mind if it happened that way. I don't think it would, though. The cause of the SSSCA proposal was that people were trading movies. People weren't trading movies just for shits and giggles, they were doing it to acquire the movies. Hence, demand for movies because they're popular. Had the movies not been popular enough to trade, no SSSCA.
:P
I dunno why I wrote all that, I think you're just pulling my leg. Heh. Fun stuff.
Your overly simplified metaphor (which illustrates that you don't get my point, you really should have read my sig) is wrong.
It'd be more like this:
I'm still using Linux because I don't think Windows 95 service release 2 is ready for prime time. Windows 95 service release 1 still requires configuration in the Autoexec.bat and Config.sys files to run properly. I doubt they made an interface for it where you can just flip a few switches to make it work.
To which the proper reply should be: "Oh, good news. They did fix that. They did a bunch of work in that area. It may be worth you trying out now."
Instead of this: "FUCKING MORON!! You don't even know what you're talking about since you don't live and breath Windows 95 SR 2. Why don't you just go format your hard drive and then install Windows 95 SR 2 before you try to tell us there's something wrong with it!" Which is basically what you Linux loving dweebs are telling me. Never mind that I'm simply suggesting a little more thought go into the user interface, no no you'd rather attack me because I said there's something Linux could learn from both MS and Apple.
If you're still whinging about my not being 100% up to date before commenting on the incompetance of a product, then just leave it. It is not central to my point. It's responses like these that inspired my signature.
heh that's the second time I've been modded a troll over requests to avoid movie spoilage.
I guess what the moderators really want me to do is say stuff like this:
* Imagine a beowulf cluster of Minority Reports
* I'll never buy this movie on DVD because I run Linux
* Here's a link to the first 3 reviews I found on Google
* This isn't news! I've seen movies before!
and
* The movie's already available for download on Kazaa
In the first paragraph of the summary say: "Go see this movie" or "Don't go see this movie".
*afeared of Lone Gunmen Spoilers*
"I will reply, and dont want to refute, I know and you know, as do 97% of the ppl who read /. that you dont have a friggen clue what you wrote about."
85% of those people were busy trying to flush my statement instead of trying to understand it. It isn't hard to read what I said and say "Ah, what he wants is for the graphical interface to control the whole machine like Mac and Windows does, versus being (for all intents and purposes) a shell."
KDE or Gnome should be able to hide the Linux prompt completely like OSX hides BSD from the user. The average user should not ever need to get to it. If they can get to that point, then they can start selling at places like Gateway. I should be able to install a new driver EASILY through KDE. I should be able to change my network settings via a simple dialog interface, EASILY. It should all be organized so I can find it, EASILY.
If KDE or Gnome fixed that since the version I mentioned, GREAT! Hallelieuia! I just don't know that they did. What I read about was 'font anti-aliasing'. Oh big important upgrade.
If you went back to Windows 2000 because KDE or Gnome was so bad and because you couldn't figure out KDE "because of design work" then you are the type of person that just needs to stick with Windows. -- I used myself as an example, I'm not saying that it needs that to sell me on Linux. New computer users feel threatened by having to type in commands. Linux, if it's going to succeed in the desktop world, needs to be more intuitive with the mouse. In the case of KDE and Gnome, at the time I tried them, they needed a lot of work in that area. It didn't appear as though they spent any time worrying about it. They both had the expectation that I would go mucking around with Linux commands in order to administer it. That's a bad expectation for the market I mentioned.
"Linux is not defined by a GUI." -- It needs to be if it's going to enter the desktop market. It needs a graphical interface that's usabililty is on par with Windows or Mac. Until then, it's just not going to be on the desktop.
Does that mean Linux is dead? No. It just mean Linux won't be sold at Gateway any time soon.
The attitude that 'you should stick with Windows' is a horrible, HORRIBLE attitude to have if you want to expand the Linux userbase and dethrone MS.
I would have if the feature list I saw showed any signs of improving the problems I had with it.
I do, however, have a unix seasoned software engineer sitting right behind me right now trying to get Linux running. Getting the network connection to work, for example, is requiring him to go muck around with Linux's prompt. If it takes that just to do a basic network thing (as opposed to a couple of mouse clicks like Windows), then it's not the type of thing that Gateway is going to even be remotely interested in selling to newb customers.
And no, I'm quoting a guy by the name of NanoG. My name is NanoGator.
Err no I didn't refute them, I said my info was old.
Too bad you're busy telling me to shut up instead of explaining to me what they did to address those issues since the last release.
"How can you make such a strong criticism of KDE or GNOME when you admit you're uninformed?"
Because it was so bad that I went back to Windows 2000.
My point was not to criticize particulars of it, but rather to point out they should be looking at what MS did right and take notes. It's not perfect. They need more evolution in the direction that would make it more attractive to new computer users. That's a valid comment and I'm not taking it back just because I'm a version behind.
If I, somebody who knows Windows backwards and forwards and can support people over the phone with it, has trouble picking up KDE and using it, then it needs some serious design work. I'm not talking bug fixes here.
"If you know your claims are uninformed bullshit, then don't make them."
If you can't refute my claims, then don't reply to me.
Great. They've been Slashdotted. I can just see Commander Data drumming his fingers on the console waiting for the hourglass to go away.
We're anti-MPAA, not anti-interesting movies.
If none of us liked movies, the MPAA couldn't piss us off.
Hee hee. You're the first person to spot the irony in it. That was intentional.
I got involved in a thread where like 10 or so people all tried to use a metaphor to prove me wrong. All of the metaphors they used were horribly oversimplified and were really not about the point I was trying to make. The worst part was they didn't glance at the other people who had already commented. So I ended up repeating myself 4 or 5 times to explain my side. Eventually I got fed up and put that in the sig, hoping they'd get the point.
Pity I ran into a character limit though. I could have made the irony of it a little more pronounced.
lol @ Godwin's law. -- thanks for mentioning that, I learned something new today.
:)
I'm sorry, I couldn't think of a better example. I really did try to come up with a better/less extreme example.
I'm just saying that if the USA was really out to get all our freedoms taken away, things would be drastically different. We'd have real strict laws about what can be published on the internet. The ID card would be around right now. TV would be nothing but commercials for the miliatry.
Instead what I see are trigger happy military types wanting extremist action, and the Gov't and the people are saying "no, that's too far". So there's lots of bickering
Frankly, I'm comforted by the bickering. I was really worried that 9-11 would have really locked down our freedoms, but I'm not seeing much of that. The example I used in another post here is that Portland had the Rose festival a couple of weeks ago. We had military ships from USA and Canada docked here. They put up barracades, restricted accesss, and had fewer ships. To my surprise, though, you could still board them.
One thing that you have done though, and I appreciate this, is that you've shown me that I do take some things for granted. I live in a 'Nar, there are enough people defending my rights that no matter what happens, I'll be okay.' world.
I needta break out of that. It is reaaaally easy to be comfortable in USA.
"Does it really matter to you if Linux on the desktop never takes off? I prefer being in the 1% users"
The downside, though, is that your favorite games are going to be on PC.
If the game industry were to recognize Linux as a gaming OS, then the benefits would be alarming. For one thing, driver support for Linux would be heaps better. We'd start seeing products that have Linux drivers right on the CD's. Imagine that.
It'd take something like "Linux working as a desktop OS" to get that ball rolling. If it did, you may even find products make specifically for Linux.
Bigger Audience = Better Support and more innovation
The big problem with KDE and Gnome right now is that they're still not ready for prime time. I used them both for a bit and was really annoyed at how hard it was not only to find configuration options, but at how unrefined it felt. (Note: The version I used came with Redhat 6... or maybe 6.2. I'm not claiming my info's up to date. I know new versions of both are out now.)
This is not an attack on those programs, it's a criticism. If the average user ever has to get to a command prompt, then it fails.
I'm not saying they're unusuable, I'm saying that they need some more evolution in order to reach the mass 'I bought my computer at Gateway' market. Lots of people are quick to point out what Windows does wrong, not enough are examining what they did right.
There are lots of things about Windows that are comforting to a new computer user. For example, ever see this message: "These are system files, you really don't want to play around in here." It's an annoyance to advanced users, but to a new user it's comfort. "Oh, Windows won't let me break it by accident."
Anyhoo, I can imagine I'm going to burn karma over these comments. Again I'll say that I'm not saying "MS good Linux bad", I'm just saying that it's still a little behind.
I wish the RIAA would just set up a database where I can put in my CD and go to their site. They look at the CD, determine the songs on it, and build a database of the songs I have legally acquired. Then, I can take the MP3's that I've grown attached to, have them check the identifier on them, and send me a bill for the licenses I need to have them.
What's great about this idea is that people could buy songs without bandwidth overhead to the RIAA. Give me that ability, and the RIAA may start getting money from me again. In the mean time, I visit the pawn shop alot.
"Than they should just rip the mp3 themselves."
I don't think most people can rip a damaged CD. All you're doing is giving the RIAA the ability to screw you on the replacement. "yep, that's a damaged CD. Buy another one."
It'd be the equivalent of 4 DVD rips. If they provided a server with a decent upload capacity, it'd be no big deal to get.
I'd pay $10-$15 for a version of Monsters Inc. like that. Maybe more if they include the extras.
"Since they can't make any money from legal file-sharing they couldn't care less if they kill it as long as they sell more CDs."
They're not actually trying to make money from it. That's why I'm offended by them for trying to shut down P2P. They're making drastic assumptions about what people will do instead of seeing it as a goldmine.
I might actually be sympathetic if they were offering an affordable service.
"I don't see how you can "use the same arms against them", because they are not attempting to download copyrighted content from your computer (-; What they are doing is NOT really a "DoS" attack, but rather, exploiting the fact that the system relies on anonymity."
Hmm. I had DoS in mind when I wrote that. I don't have an issue with them putting fake files on P2P. That's their perogative. The funny thing is that'll blow up in their face if they ever try to legitimize digital downloads. All it'll do is drive people into the underground to trade stuff. IRC, for example.
Right now, Kazaa is a nice huge collection of users. If Hollywood were to say "Download Attack of the Clones for $5 @ 1280 by 1024 resolution", people would FLOCK to it. (well they would if it were a good movie, heh.)
If they drive people underground, they won't have a centralized way to tap potential customers.
I really wasn't thinking about this when I wrote my post about 'using their own arms against them', but it does seem to fit, doesn't it?
"Frankly, I see this as a serious flaw to the DMCA. It creates provisions for fair use, but doesn't define them. So really, anybody can twist the wording to their own ends. Imagine if gun laws were like that. It'd be like "You can own a gun,
... It'd be like "You can own a gun, you may not shoot it unless: 1.) You are in danger. 2.) It's for educational purposes. 3.) You aren't aiming to harm. 4.) You have permission from the victim to be shot."
I apologize, I hit 'submit' instead of 'preview'. Let it be documented that I'm a dome ass.
Continuing:
Personally, I think it's better the way it is now: You may not kill people. You may not endanger people. You may not scare people. You have the right to have it and defend yourself.
I know, I'm oversimplifying, but hopefully my point comes across. DigitalConsumer.Org really struck a chord with me by defining what we can do with our digital rights. It seems like if those rights were passed into law, then the RIAA could clearly define what a 'pirate' really is. Only then would they be able to take steps to stop them.
They wouldn't be able to, for example, make un-backupable CD's. They wouldn't be able to put up fake files on P2P. And they wouldn't be able to make accusations against Apple for their 'Rip Mix and Burn' campagin, that'd be defamation.
I can see things making a whole lot more sense after that. Of course, the RIAA would have to develop a digital licensing database to know who can do what.
I heard a story of a guy who put razorblades around his stereo. A would-be thief sued him over it and won.
.. well.. gone! The MPAA thinks that I should pay for the Star Wars Triology again if I want to watch it again. I think I should be able to download it if somebody was nice enough to backup their copy.
There's another story about a guy who boobytrapped his wallet. When he was pickpocketed, it exploded and blew the thief's hands off. The 'victim' got to pay the handless thief for the rest of his life. (Note: That may be an urban legend.)
The law doesn't allow you to do things like that. I can only guess at the reason.
It seems to me that a DoS (yes I know that's not what the article's about, don't wast your time telling me I didnt read it) attack on P2P would fall under that law. If anybody does get attacked in any way by the RIAA, they could probaby take them to court and teach them a lesson.
What really irks me is that the law conflicts a bit. If I have the right to make a backup of a CD, shouldn't that allow one to make that backup available to others? The MPAA/RIAA calls that piracy. I don't call it piracy until somebody retrieves the backup who hasn't paid for a license.
I bought the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition a few years ago. The tapes disappeared when I moved. I didn't sell them, they just
The law supports both what I think and what the MPAA/RIAA thinks. It is for this reason, that I do not believe that either of these organizations should be given the ability to pass judgement against me. Instead, USA should do what DigitalConsumer.org suggestions: Create a set of rights for internet users.
If the law says 'you can backup your media', then the RIAA cannot sue me for having an MP3 copy of a song from a CD I purchased. Since an MP3 is a backup copy (can't play an MP3 in the standard CD Player...), then transmitting it to somebody else isn't a crime. It's not my job to judge who's licensed and who isn't. That's between the RIAA and whoever is violating it.
Frankly, I see this as a serious flaw to the DMCA. It creates provisions for fair use, but doesn't define them. So really, anybody can twist the wording to their own ends. Imagine if gun laws were like that. It'd be like "You can own a gun,
"Read the damn article! It's not saying that they can ping-flood P2P networks"
Actually I did read the article. My comment stands. It was a way of saying "if they take arms in enforcing copyrights, they may find those same arms used against them."
You might have pulled that out of my comment if you weren't busy trying to correct me for the sake of looking intelligent.
"The difference is that stealing music is not covered by your fair use rights."
... well that's a little different, isn't it? What if the person on the other end downloading it owns the song? This is the type of case that could go on for quite a while.
It's not their place to judge. Since our rights aren't defined in this area, then all they can do is attack this little guy and that little guy.
A guy stealing a car is a theif. A guy uploading an MP3