When an auto maker (or any product manufacturer), recognizes a safety problem in their product (even if it is generally caused by user ignorance). They send out postal mail to registered consumers,...where would microsoft be if they were required to send a patch CD to every registered customer for every security patch
Here's where the analogy breaks down:
safety problem with car = chance of death
safety problem with (home) PC = chance of losing porn collection.
It simply isn't fair to blame Microsoft for the ignorance of their users.
Was it fair to blackmail any PC manufacturer who tried to install anything else? Is it fair to make it almost impossible to uninstall IE, (not just hide the icon)?
Some AC wrote: >Google lumps all posts together with the same "Subject:" header, even if they're years apart.
this is fine as it provides an answer to posts for any subsequent searches.
Well, to be clear, I wasn't expressing a preference so much as an assessment. Since so many do use usenet for binaries, they're not going to go to any other service if it doesn't support that.
Where I do feel unease is that it could easily shift control of Usenet from a massively distributed network of news servers, for all their inefficiencies, to a single company's servers. I already do most of my posting to text groups via Google, though I know I really shouldn't.
Fuck binaries, binares aren't the real Usenet. They're what's killing the real Usenet.
Wasn't it AOL that was killing Usenet? OR Outlook HTML? Or spam?
But you may have a point. It's harder and harder to find an ISP with a decent usenet feed, even of text only groups, mainly I suppose because of the massive bandwidth of people posting DVD rips and the like.
No actually Google Groups DOESNT allow you to post to old articles,
I see lots of replies to several-month old posts in the groups I frequent. But on checking, I see that the "Post a follow-up to this message" link is only on posts less than a month old. I had asumed it was just them overlooking the date, but seeing as they have to go to the trouble of copying and pasting the subject into a new post I'm at a loss as to why they would do that. But the larger problem remains, that Google groups threads subject by title alone.
I wouldn't rule out the idea that google is trying to become the "new" usenet here, and I actually believe they could pull it off. Rumors have abounded for years that usenet was going to just fade away (of course it hasn't) because people didn't like the old-school ways of accessing it.
Unless they allow massive binaries, they're not going to replace real Usenet. And as most Usenet binaries are porn or warez, it seems unlikely Google will.
Nothing was greater than when Google bought out Delphi and took over the largest USENET archive of all-time.
Google always does things the right way without ruining the user experience or their wallets.
Actually, the original dejanews was better (before they got desperate and tried to become a portal). They respected the referrers headers and had largely correct threading. Google lumps all posts together with the same "Subject:" header, even if they're years apart. Also deja wouldn't let you respond to an old message (a month, I think), whereas I often see people who've obviously found a post with a Google search and responded to it, not noticing that it's a few years old.
Also, Google has picked up some groups on servers like Adobe.com and presents them as if they were normal newsgroups. However, they're not, and though Google lets you make a post to them, no one will answwer becasue they only see those posted via Adobe.
I'm not really happy that Google is blending their own groups with Usenet. Too many already can't tell the difference between web forums and Usenet.
And if you have a Gmail account you already have a login for the Google groups.
Not a great idea. When registering to post to Usenet using Google Groups you must use a working email address to get the confirmation. And when you post that same address is posted along with your messages; you have no option even to obfuscate it. So within two days that account is jammed with spam and viruses. Fortunately I used a throwaway account to do that. No matter how effective the spam filtering, why expose a real address in the place that is guaranteed to get you tons of spam?
That measurable and concrete dollar (or euro) amount is what has been taken
No, that amount is just theoretical. The potential loss is certainly the basis for claiming damages, but it's stil not theft.
If there is a demand for a copy of the work at a particular price, we can assume that the value of the right to create that copy is no less than the price less the copying costs.
Sorry, but this is the bullshit argument that the BSA rolls out: 1 million tenagers have bootleg copies of Photoshop to put their teachers' heads on pornstar bodies, so Adobe has lost 1 million x $500 or whatever. We all know that 98% of these kids would never buy a full version, if they had to go legit they'd use one of the many adequate paint programs at $50 or less, or even Gimp at $0. Again, is illegal, but the amount lost is highly debatable.
Not really. If it's broadcast it's already in the public domain, and someone else could quite legitimately have recorded it.
No, broadcasting something doesn't put it in the public domain. That's actually one reason cited for requiring the broadcasters to keep copies, becasue it's technically illegal for viewer/listeners to do so (aside from time-shifting).
Theft:...The wrongful taking of the property of another.
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
This is the essence of your argument. I hope you can see that "copying" isn't "taking" -- for a start, the copyrighted object has not been taken away. Making a copy or a derivative work is a violation of copyright, it isn't theft, stealing, robbery, or even really piracy, except that the latter term has somehow become attached to this particular act, though it has nothing to do with armed robbery on the high seas. There is a reason that the legal concept of "intellectual property" has evolved: it's because the concepts of "real property" fall apart in many cases when you try to apply them to ideas rather than goods. So whenever I see an argument beginnning "Think of this DVD/software as a car..." and going on to talk about carjacking, the cost of a Mercedes, etc, there's realy no way to answer, because the terms of reference are already far from the actual legal system.
>a P2P network would be the last place where I would download software
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?"
I think software piracy by P2P is far-fetched -- not that it doesn't happen, but that it's hardly the major vector. Also, looking at the FA: "Vietnam and China had the world's highest rates, with pirated versions accounting for 92 percent". There's no way P2P has anything to do with piracy there. If you've ever been to either country, or most 3rd-world countries, you'd know that Internet access is terrible and expensive, but CDROM (AND DVD) bootlegs are dirt cheap. I would imagine that in most 1st world countries, bootlegs propagate mostly by CDROM too, either free from friends or at a few dollars a disk, from boot sales, street vendors or the like.
Yes, but it only works for already protected content
If you take their statements at face value, they want to make it illegal to transfer any file unless you have permission -- if a file lacks protection that would thus be blocked (i.e. unprotected = pirated). Obviously unworkable now, but if mandated...
For those who didn't read to the end of the article, I think this is the vital bit Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement. "Legitimate uses of peer-to-peer are upheld, while those who intentionally lure consumers into breaking the law are held to account. Under this legislation, the path to legitimacy remains clear: Respect the law and block the exchange of works the copyright owner has not authorized."
So UNLESS a P2P app blocks all not-authorised (by the *IAA) file transfers, it will be considered illegal. The implications are amazing, and could easily be applied to hardware (any file copy, burn to CDR, upload to MP3 player, etc...)
I'm still searching for some good free word processing software for DOS.
Perhaps you'd be interested in MS Word DOS 5.5, which MS is offering freely here. I think it was a Y2K upgrade. Very useful, eg if you want to print on a dot matrix, WinWord just can't use printer fonts, insists on using Truetype, which takes 4 times longer -- just save from WinWord as RTF, open in DOS Word, do some quick search-and replace on fonts, print.
The question of the day is: just how cheap _is_ this solution (anyone have figures?) and how does it compare to four really cheap white-box PCs?
You could do this with a "white box" PC. All it needs is another three PCI video cards (don't go crazy on high end stuff, something two or three years old wold be more than adequate). Probably a USB card or a hub. Throw in some more RAM if you can afford it. Plenty of CRT monitors are thrown out, mice and keyboards are dirt cheap too (or recycled).
When I was a lad, we had mark sense cards -- like punchcards, but you had to use a pencil to mark each character. Only in 2nd year of university did we get to use a terminal, then it was ed -- 3rd year we were allowed to use vi in full screen.
Don't worry if you don't agree now - you'll get the idea when we pull out of that modern League of Nations.
Political Science by Randy Newman
No one likes us - I don't know why We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try But all around, even our old friends put us down Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful? No, they're spiteful and they're hateful They don't respect us-so let's surprise them We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old Africa is far too hot And Canada's too cold And South America stole our name Let's drop the big one There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo We'll build an All American amusement park there They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree More room for you and more room for me And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town Oh, how peaceful it will be We'll set everybody free You'll wear a Japanese kimono And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow So let's drop the big one now Let's drop the big one now
Slashdot Mirror
Here's where the analogy breaks down:
safety problem with car = chance of death
safety problem with (home) PC = chance of losing porn collection.
Was it fair to blackmail any PC manufacturer who tried to install anything else? Is it fair to make it almost impossible to uninstall IE, (not just hide the icon)?
this is fine as it provides an answer to posts for any subsequent searches.
Yeah. 78 posts under the subject "Help" spread over 12 years is really useful. You're missing the whole point of threads, as have Google, unfortunately.
Well, to be clear, I wasn't expressing a preference so much as an assessment. Since so many do use usenet for binaries, they're not going to go to any other service if it doesn't support that.
Where I do feel unease is that it could easily shift control of Usenet from a massively distributed network of news servers, for all their inefficiencies, to a single company's servers. I already do most of my posting to text groups via Google, though I know I really shouldn't.
Wasn't it AOL that was killing Usenet? OR Outlook HTML? Or spam? But you may have a point. It's harder and harder to find an ISP with a decent usenet feed, even of text only groups, mainly I suppose because of the massive bandwidth of people posting DVD rips and the like.
I see lots of replies to several-month old posts in the groups I frequent. But on checking, I see that the "Post a follow-up to this message" link is only on posts less than a month old. I had asumed it was just them overlooking the date, but seeing as they have to go to the trouble of copying and pasting the subject into a new post I'm at a loss as to why they would do that. But the larger problem remains, that Google groups threads subject by title alone.
You seem to have missed the "(aside from time-shifting)" qualification I made.
And I can play it back as many times as I want.
I seem to recall that you are not supposed, in law, to keep it indefinitely. In practice, of course no one cares.
Google groups signs your posts with the address that you sign up for it with. This is a spam magnet. Does it do the same with the new version?
Unless they allow massive binaries, they're not going to replace real Usenet. And as most Usenet binaries are porn or warez, it seems unlikely Google will.
Please MOD DOWN all these people begging for GMail accounts. Every time there is a Google-realted story the threads get full of this crap.
Actually, the original dejanews was better (before they got desperate and tried to become a portal). They respected the referrers headers and had largely correct threading. Google lumps all posts together with the same "Subject:" header, even if they're years apart. Also deja wouldn't let you respond to an old message (a month, I think), whereas I often see people who've obviously found a post with a Google search and responded to it, not noticing that it's a few years old.
Also, Google has picked up some groups on servers like Adobe.com and presents them as if they were normal newsgroups. However, they're not, and though Google lets you make a post to them, no one will answwer becasue they only see those posted via Adobe.
I'm not really happy that Google is blending their own groups with Usenet. Too many already can't tell the difference between web forums and Usenet.
Not a great idea. When registering to post to Usenet using Google Groups you must use a working email address to get the confirmation. And when you post that same address is posted along with your messages; you have no option even to obfuscate it. So within two days that account is jammed with spam and viruses. Fortunately I used a throwaway account to do that. No matter how effective the spam filtering, why expose a real address in the place that is guaranteed to get you tons of spam?
Probably. But what if you made the recording and there was no violation?
Anyway, in practice, considering what TiVo does, it seems there is little chance of prosecution.
No, that amount is just theoretical. The potential loss is certainly the basis for claiming damages, but it's stil not theft.
If there is a demand for a copy of the work at a particular price, we can assume that the value of the right to create that copy is no less than the price less the copying costs.
Sorry, but this is the bullshit argument that the BSA rolls out: 1 million tenagers have bootleg copies of Photoshop to put their teachers' heads on pornstar bodies, so Adobe has lost 1 million x $500 or whatever. We all know that 98% of these kids would never buy a full version, if they had to go legit they'd use one of the many adequate paint programs at $50 or less, or even Gimp at $0. Again, is illegal, but the amount lost is highly debatable.
No, broadcasting something doesn't put it in the public domain. That's actually one reason cited for requiring the broadcasters to keep copies, becasue it's technically illegal for viewer/listeners to do so (aside from time-shifting).
Since copyright assigns rights of ownership to the copyright holder, any 'Unauthorized copying,' would be 'wrongful taking of property.'
This is the essence of your argument. I hope you can see that "copying" isn't "taking" -- for a start, the copyrighted object has not been taken away. Making a copy or a derivative work is a violation of copyright, it isn't theft, stealing, robbery, or even really piracy, except that the latter term has somehow become attached to this particular act, though it has nothing to do with armed robbery on the high seas. There is a reason that the legal concept of "intellectual property" has evolved: it's because the concepts of "real property" fall apart in many cases when you try to apply them to ideas rather than goods. So whenever I see an argument beginnning "Think of this DVD/software as a car..." and going on to talk about carjacking, the cost of a Mercedes, etc, there's realy no way to answer, because the terms of reference are already far from the actual legal system.
You're kidding, right? The submitter is either purposely acting ignorant or really has had their head under a rock for the past five years. Software piracy is "far-fetched?"
I think software piracy by P2P is far-fetched -- not that it doesn't happen, but that it's hardly the major vector. Also, looking at the FA: "Vietnam and China had the world's highest rates, with pirated versions accounting for 92 percent". There's no way P2P has anything to do with piracy there. If you've ever been to either country, or most 3rd-world countries, you'd know that Internet access is terrible and expensive, but CDROM (AND DVD) bootlegs are dirt cheap. I would imagine that in most 1st world countries, bootlegs propagate mostly by CDROM too, either free from friends or at a few dollars a disk, from boot sales, street vendors or the like.
If you take their statements at face value, they want to make it illegal to transfer any file unless you have permission -- if a file lacks protection that would thus be blocked (i.e. unprotected = pirated). Obviously unworkable now, but if mandated...
You haven't heard of "trusted computing"/Palladium?
So UNLESS a P2P app blocks all not-authorised (by the *IAA) file transfers, it will be considered illegal. The implications are amazing, and could easily be applied to hardware (any file copy, burn to CDR, upload to MP3 player, etc...)
Perhaps you'd be interested in MS Word DOS 5.5, which MS is offering freely here. I think it was a Y2K upgrade. Very useful, eg if you want to print on a dot matrix, WinWord just can't use printer fonts, insists on using Truetype, which takes 4 times longer -- just save from WinWord as RTF, open in DOS Word, do some quick search-and replace on fonts, print.
But still, would like to know about "Mel".
You could do this with a "white box" PC. All it needs is another three PCI video cards (don't go crazy on high end stuff, something two or three years old wold be more than adequate). Probably a USB card or a hub. Throw in some more RAM if you can afford it. Plenty of CRT monitors are thrown out, mice and keyboards are dirt cheap too (or recycled).
You had monitors?
When I was a lad, we had mark sense cards -- like punchcards, but you had to use a pencil to mark each character. Only in 2nd year of university did we get to use a terminal, then it was ed -- 3rd year we were allowed to use vi in full screen.
Except no one knows if he reached the peak or not.
Don't worry if you don't agree now - you'll get the idea when we pull out of that modern League of Nations.
Political Science by Randy Newman
No one likes us - I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now