I think the author is a little extremist. I don't see MSFT opening MS Office any time in the next 10 years, and I don't think that the bulk of consumers will care - they just want to use what everyone else is using, i.e. a feedback loop.
Also, the idea that huge, industry dominator A suing small company B somehow makes it more attractive for your company to work with B, makes no sense at all. If you go to management with this, they'll laugh at you.
I want revenue sharing for all cell-phone signals that go through my body. WiFi too. Oh, and walktie talkies. And ham radios, AM, FM, and XM. You know what, since it's all just EM waves anyway, I also want revenue for each ray of light that bounces off me and onto anything else. Got a microwave oven? Pay up.
How I act when I play online is pretty different my normal behavior, and I suspect that it's the same way for most people. We play these online games because they let us escape from our normal problems & fears, so why would they expect our behavior in a fantasy land to parallel our real lives?
In the article, it explains why Microsoft chose this route: Since FOSS is (nominally, if not practically) written by a loose band of volunteers, and because they don't really sell the software (with some exceptions, but generally mostly they give the software away and sell the support), it is extremely difficult to track them all down and make them pay royalties. It is much easier to just threaten the major corporate users (who are extremely risk averse). To quote Neal Stephenson, "Microsoft is ten times smarter than your average government, a hundred times more aggressive, and bound by no particular rules."
I'm surprised a suit would say that comparison is 'difficult', when sales figures are readily available. Maybe what's difficult is having to explain them to billg?
Clearly, the "problem" is that we, the Linux community, should be trying to "convert" the n00bs out there who don't know what apt-get is. Having WINE preinstalled would help them get over the fact that they're not running Windows, yet everything is fine, and they can do pretty much everything today they that they could when they were running Windows yesterday.
As an officer currently serving, I can tell you that these rules are very rarely, if ever, enforced. Many Soldiers see this is as more of a legal catchall - similar in principle to the "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" charge that can be leveled against an officer for just about anything, but is only used in practice when an officer does something that is obviously against the spirit of the law/UCMJ, but not the letter. The 1st Amendment / free speech angle doesn't really apply here, since all Soldiers are volunteers, and thus voluntarily signed some of their freedoms away when they joined up. I realize that may sound draconian and less than ideal to some of you, but that is the reality of the situation w/rt military discipline. As one of my old instructors once told me, "We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it."
Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.
In other words, the case was about whether or not a single, specific contract was breached (which is fairly common type of case in civil courts) - it is not some sweeping endorsement of DVD ripping, as the headline would have you believe. The ruling merely states that the contract Kaleidescape signed with the DVD CCA doesn't preclude ripping DVDs, aka a question of contract law, not copyright law.
"It is a hard heart that kills!" - Full Metal Jacket
Hiro turns off all the techno-bullshit. The statistics about his impending death distract him... - Snow Crash
What happens to this whole thing when the batteries die? Or when they have to jump in the water and it shorts out? Or when it just, you know, breaks? Soldiering is soldiering, no matter what technologies you equip your soldiers with. It's about being adaptable, flexible, and enduring. This techno crap isn't really any of those things.
If you look closely, the vertical text on the right side of the Windows box says "Windows Vista Ulimate 2007". Given that we're talking about China, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, NO.
True, some (most?) wireless access devices are configured out of the box to connect to anything available. So maybe it's not so much the user's fault as potentially the device manufacturer. On the other hand, the device is only establishing the connection, it's not surfing the web or downloading torrents on its own...
First, listening to your neighbor's CDs is a passive act (inasmuch as you don't have to do anything to hear it), whereas piggybacking his WiFi is active, in the sense that you actively decided to get on his network.
Second, listening to your neighbor's CDs doesn't really harm the neighbor from an economic standpoint. The fact that your ears are hearing the music doesn't mean there is any less of it left for the neighbor, whereas that isn't true for the WiFi piece; if you're on his WiFi, you're using (and unless you have consent from him, stealing) his bandwidth.
Third, it is an untenable argument that someone not securing their WiFi is the same thing as inviting people to use it. That is like saying that if you leave your front door unlocked, you are inviting the neighborhood to come on in.
Sometimes I like to play Doom3/Quake4 with a resolution of 800x600, or 640x480, because it gives that pixelated look that I remember so well from the games of yesteryear, when I first started playing (games like Wolfenstein, Doom, and Descent).
History is littered with the remnants of "unbreakable" restriction/protection/encryption schemes; it's just a matter of time. Consider, for example, Van Eck Phreaking (which may provoke some sort of black market for CRTs?). And anyway, the Luddite in me would say that we got along for x thousand (million?) years without movies. Maybe it made living in the moment that much richer.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the author is a little extremist. I don't see MSFT opening MS Office any time in the next 10 years, and I don't think that the bulk of consumers will care - they just want to use what everyone else is using, i.e. a feedback loop. Also, the idea that huge, industry dominator A suing small company B somehow makes it more attractive for your company to work with B, makes no sense at all. If you go to management with this, they'll laugh at you.
let them put whatever they want on television. if you don't like what they're showing, get off the couch and do something else.
I want revenue sharing for all cell-phone signals that go through my body. WiFi too. Oh, and walktie talkies. And ham radios, AM, FM, and XM. You know what, since it's all just EM waves anyway, I also want revenue for each ray of light that bounces off me and onto anything else. Got a microwave oven? Pay up.
...than to think of these two particular parties slugging it out, appeal for appeal, in the US court system, for years and years and years...
How I act when I play online is pretty different my normal behavior, and I suspect that it's the same way for most people. We play these online games because they let us escape from our normal problems & fears, so why would they expect our behavior in a fantasy land to parallel our real lives?
In the article, it explains why Microsoft chose this route: Since FOSS is (nominally, if not practically) written by a loose band of volunteers, and because they don't really sell the software (with some exceptions, but generally mostly they give the software away and sell the support), it is extremely difficult to track them all down and make them pay royalties. It is much easier to just threaten the major corporate users (who are extremely risk averse). To quote Neal Stephenson, "Microsoft is ten times smarter than your average government, a hundred times more aggressive, and bound by no particular rules."
In the old days, we called this extortion.
I'm surprised a suit would say that comparison is 'difficult', when sales figures are readily available. Maybe what's difficult is having to explain them to billg?
Clearly, the "problem" is that we, the Linux community, should be trying to "convert" the n00bs out there who don't know what apt-get is. Having WINE preinstalled would help them get over the fact that they're not running Windows, yet everything is fine, and they can do pretty much everything today they that they could when they were running Windows yesterday.
Unbelievably strong level editor. Endless amusement. In short, it r0x0r.
... and it looks like I probably won't vote for him next time, either.
how cool is that, a suit who gets it...
Because you and I are too lazy to write the plugin?
As an officer currently serving, I can tell you that these rules are very rarely, if ever, enforced. Many Soldiers see this is as more of a legal catchall - similar in principle to the "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" charge that can be leveled against an officer for just about anything, but is only used in practice when an officer does something that is obviously against the spirit of the law/UCMJ, but not the letter. The 1st Amendment / free speech angle doesn't really apply here, since all Soldiers are volunteers, and thus voluntarily signed some of their freedoms away when they joined up. I realize that may sound draconian and less than ideal to some of you, but that is the reality of the situation w/rt military discipline. As one of my old instructors once told me, "We're here to preserve democracy, not practice it."
My guess would be that the MPAA will still put up a fight based on copyright/fair use (or lack thereof).
In other words, the case was about whether or not a single, specific contract was breached (which is fairly common type of case in civil courts) - it is not some sweeping endorsement of DVD ripping, as the headline would have you believe. The ruling merely states that the contract Kaleidescape signed with the DVD CCA doesn't preclude ripping DVDs, aka a question of contract law, not copyright law.
Sorry, there's no way this could possibly be true. But, if it is, it's definitely illegal, see "theft".
You're over it!
This article reminds me of two things:
"It is a hard heart that kills!" - Full Metal Jacket
Hiro turns off all the techno-bullshit. The statistics about his impending death distract him... - Snow Crash
What happens to this whole thing when the batteries die? Or when they have to jump in the water and it shorts out? Or when it just, you know, breaks? Soldiering is soldiering, no matter what technologies you equip your soldiers with. It's about being adaptable, flexible, and enduring. This techno crap isn't really any of those things.
If you look closely, the vertical text on the right side of the Windows box says "Windows Vista Ulimate 2007". Given that we're talking about China, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, NO.
True, some (most?) wireless access devices are configured out of the box to connect to anything available. So maybe it's not so much the user's fault as potentially the device manufacturer. On the other hand, the device is only establishing the connection, it's not surfing the web or downloading torrents on its own...
I think your analogy is invalid.
First, listening to your neighbor's CDs is a passive act (inasmuch as you don't have to do anything to hear it), whereas piggybacking his WiFi is active, in the sense that you actively decided to get on his network.
Second, listening to your neighbor's CDs doesn't really harm the neighbor from an economic standpoint. The fact that your ears are hearing the music doesn't mean there is any less of it left for the neighbor, whereas that isn't true for the WiFi piece; if you're on his WiFi, you're using (and unless you have consent from him, stealing) his bandwidth.
Third, it is an untenable argument that someone not securing their WiFi is the same thing as inviting people to use it. That is like saying that if you leave your front door unlocked, you are inviting the neighborhood to come on in.
Sometimes I like to play Doom3/Quake4 with a resolution of 800x600, or 640x480, because it gives that pixelated look that I remember so well from the games of yesteryear, when I first started playing (games like Wolfenstein, Doom, and Descent).
"could sell off your personal information."
Sorry to disappoint you, but people don't even want my personal information when I offer it to them (that chick at the bar) for free!
History is littered with the remnants of "unbreakable" restriction/protection/encryption schemes; it's just a matter of time. Consider, for example, Van Eck Phreaking (which may provoke some sort of black market for CRTs?). And anyway, the Luddite in me would say that we got along for x thousand (million?) years without movies. Maybe it made living in the moment that much richer.
..to all you 360 owners, you're gonna get pwnd!