"As a counter-point, I'd bring up Stephen King's experiment, where he allowed free download of his book and asked for a tiny donation in return. Very few of the people who downloaded the book paid for it and the project was scrapped."
My wife is a BIG Steven King fan and purchased ever chapter of "The Plant" (The ebook to which you refer.)
The project was not scrapped. He did finish the book and on his web site he stated that he made more money from that book than from other books that were sold through regular publishers.
The fact that his sales have gone up when he makes his ebooks available for free should not be taken as a green light to pirate ebooks (or anything else.)
The copyright holders have the right to distribute their works as they see fit and it is not for consumers to decide the distribution method for them.
We should instead try to educate people. If there is a business model that allows one to give a product away and still make a descent living I'm sure that a lot of us would be interested.
that most people don't realize when they buy a piece of hardware that it uses the operating system to replace a few chips in the device and that means using more CPU cycles to run the equipment.
They probably don't even realize that their computer isn't as fast as it could be.
Maybe someday this will blow up in Microsoft's face when people can't understand why a Linux box runs so much faster than the Microsoft boxes.
The internet is still much like the old west. It is lawless and wide open. If you aren't dealing with a known company you need to be extra careful.
When you buy something at an online auction you should consider paying though a trusted third party. Basically the third party can hold your payment until you receive the merchandise.
Have you ever noticed that if you put the word "The" and the acronym "IRS" together it spells "Theirs"
"Microsoft insists that such thinking represented the old Microsoft. In interviews, several of its key program managers warned that underestimating Microsoft's ability to meet the computer security challenge might be as foolhardy as was misjudging its ability to turn itself into a dominant Internet player."
So, what Microsoft is saying is that because they can abuse the Monopoly power of their OS to extend their presents into the Internet services sector, we should believe that they can secure their software??
The title of the article is: "Microsoft Programmers Focus on Secure Software." I can only wonder where they found some secure software on which to focus.
Well that was a rather depressing vision of the not too distant future. What's really sad is that it is probably not too far off base.
You can say "well just don't use their services" but you had better be prepared NEVER to surf the web again because people are like sheep and there will always be enough people who do pay to keep the corporations screwing us forever.
Sadly, everything is about taking as much money from as many people as possible and we have jerk politicians like Senator Hollins who are willing to take campain contributions in trade for helping the corporations to do just that. All so the jackass can keep his high paying job.
Politicians will tell you that we need to pay high wages to attract quality. I say that money doesn't attract quality, money attracts greed.
As long as the police followed due process in obtaining a warrent, I don't see a problem.
Believe it or not sometimes it is necessary for law enforcement officials to invade our privacy and that's why a warrent is required. A warrent must be issued by a Judge and if the warrent isn't given out capriciously then it should be honored.
I think this is going to be laughed out of court. Well, it may not be quite that bad but basically Blizzard is saying that the bnetd people infringed on their copyright because the bnetd server does what it needs to do to be compatible with the battlenet server. (Well no duh!) If we applied the same standards I would guess that StarOffice is in deep trouble because of what it does to be able to load Word documents.
I believe that the lawsuit also says that the bnetd people used some graphics taken from Blizzard. If this is true then that could be a copyright infringement but I doubt that it caused Blizzard any significant damage and defiantly isn't a show stopper.
So I think the score will be: bnetd 1, Blizzard 0.
Mandrake isn't out of the woods yet. The boost of support has made them temporarily cash flow positive but as new club memberships drop off and expenses remain constant they'll be in the red again.
They need about 55,000 members paying an average of $85.00 per year to cover expenses. They feel that this goal is reachable based on their estimates of the number of Linux users. By their estimates they would only need.15% of users to become club members.
If you like Mandrake and want it to survive please help out. If you haven't become a member yet do so. The cost is less than two lattés per month. If you are already a member and know Mandrake users who are not then try to convince them that it is in their own best interests to voluntarily support companies who support the Linux community.
If I were part of Brilliant Digital, I would be bracing myself for lawsuits. The first DoS attack that comes from someone taking control of their trojans will open them up for big legal liability.
No matter how many "We will not be held responsible" statements they have in their license agreement, they won't be held harmless from the damage done to a third party.
When you think about it, any program that automatically goes out and updates itself could be a problem if a blackhat is able to fool the client into installing the blackhat's update.
"While it's no StarOffice, this glowing review may help people realize that Microsoft is not the only option."
I guess that is the crux of the matter. Since StarOffice is superior, why would I pay for the Think Free Office suit unless Sun's new pricing scheme makes is a lot more expensive?
The real things to consider are functionality, interoperability and price.
Microsoft Office is known for having a lot of functionality. In my opinion it has WAY more then I need. For example, I hardly ever need to write a virus to destroy the piece of mind of the average computer user. I find that now days the entertainment industries are doing an adequate job by sending there paid flunky Politicians like Sen. Hollins and friends to screw over the American people. It would be a good thing to remove that man from the equation. (Vote him out. No violence please.) But I digress.
StarOffice also has a lot of functionality and again, probably more than I need. If the price of StarOffice does not become prohibitive then really the only thing that concerns me is the interoperability issue.
Unfortunately in order to be competitive an office suite must interpolate with what most people use. Whether official or unofficial there usually is a standard that most people use. One of the biggest issues that I have with Microsoft is that they try to set standards that are proprietary. If you will not or can not be compatible with that standard then you can't compete. Further, the only way that Microsoft can set proprietary standards is through the use of their Monopoly power. Times have changed and we need new laws that require that standards be open so that no large corporation can leverage their Monopoly power in the way that Microsoft does. Hmmm.. I seem to have digressed again.
So, to sum it up. Unless StarOffice is way more expensive or the Think Free Office suite is superior in interoperability then I think I'll just continue to use StarOffice. Oh yeah... And Microsoft is an evil Corporation and Sen. Hollins is an asshole thinking only of his corporate benefactors and needs to go.
I guess I really like the idea of distributed computing. In a world where everyone works together with common goals we would be able to achieve almost anything. The flies in the ointment, however, are the few individuals who would get their rocks off by ruining it for everyone else, the same type of people who write virii.
Another networking subject that really interests me is wireless networking. I think that someday in the not too distant future we will see neighborhood networks forming and then a linking of various neighborhood networks to form a new kind of "internet." One that is absolutely not controlled by any group.
A lot of people who are against cloning feel that way due to moral beliefs. They may say it's because of concern for the newly created human being but it's really that they don't like man playing God.
Personally, I don't know where the science will lead us and maybe it's worth investigating. I don't like the idea of creating human beings just for the sake of doing it. We don't have a shortage of people on Earth.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
I.E. He doesn't want you to be able to play your CD and record the analog output through the use of stereo jack cables etc.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
I.E He wants laws that will FORCE hardware makers to cripple ALL electronic components that might be used to convert and/or copy digital signals into unprotected analog signals. This would mean that you would be FORCED to pay for crippled equipment because that is all that would be available.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
He is referring to the rampant theft of intellectual property like mp3s etc.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
He is referring to consumers who are exercising their right of fair use but then abusing that legal right by sharing the files with others.
Notice the use of the word "consumers" and not citizens. His interests clearly are for the corporations and not for the average American.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Ditto with the corporate interest thing.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
He repeats himself. He really wants to screw with our hardware.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
Yeah, as long as we don't expect to exercise our fair use rights.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
This bill would be changing the definition of "a legal manner", so your current expectations are irrelevant.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
Again, the "legitimate home use of digital content" will no longer include fair use. You will have to pay for content that is streamed to your home each time you listen or view it. It goes on and on but I think everyone gets the idea. Pass the Vaseline and bend over.
"That new software, the core of Brilliant Digital's Altnet business plan, has the ability to "wake up" and weld the millions of computers on which it has been installed into a new peer-to-peer network, in which each computer can talk to the other. That network, which would be controlled by Brilliant Digital, would be used to distribute content or perform complicated distributed computing tasks for Brilliant Digital's clients."
This tells me that the trojan software that Brilliant fooled millions of people into installing is probably capable of launching a DOS attack if some bright young hacker would care to reverse engineer their software.
What's that on the horizon?? It looks like a herd of lawyers rushing to court to file lawsuits!
This should be an interesting case that, hopefully, gets the law off the books due to being unconstitutional.
I don't really understand how the DMCA can apply here. Adobe's PDF files are in no way protected from copying by their "protection." You can easily copy the entire file just as you would copy any other file. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it only prevents you from printing the file. So, does AEBPR circumvent copy protection or just re-enable needed functionality?
"Yes, and the courts are totally infallable. The courts decided that 2600 was in the wrong. The courts decided that Napster should die. The courts have repeatedly decided that AOL/TW, MPAA, RIAA, Vivendi, you name it, are beyond reproach. Face it, sometimes their definitions and conclusions are total bullshit and not something we should accept as correct"
The fact that you don't agree with the law is irrelevant. You still don't have a right to ignore it. Work to change it.
>> Recording the Superbowl for your own use is "fair use" but strictly speaking giving the tape to another is probably a violation. "Oh? So my giving away the only copy I have of something away is illegal? Gee, I guess that puts used book stores and yard sales on par with the chop shop in NYC. No doubt they're next on Valenti's hitlist."
Read my post dude. It is a fact that if you record something from television for your own use it is legal. If you give that take to someone else it is breaking the law. (Strictly speaking.) It has nothing to do with book stores are yard sales.
"Don't be a jackass. It was an analogy. I never said it was going to happen or had even any chance of doing so. It was an example of this exact same problem applied to something that has inherently been un-mass-copyable, much like information a few centuries ago. The position taken by the status quo side looked stupid, and rightly so. A resource suddenly becomes infinitely available at almost no expense, limited only in the uniqueness of new variations. And what do you propose in response? Let's ignore it and maintain an artificial scarcity! Let's ignore all the positive consequences of this ability and arrest anyone trying to use them!"
I was not the one being a "jackass." The fantasy that you put forth was not worth commenting on. But if you insist...
We at this time do NOT have a way to "copy food." We must BUY food. The people who create intellectual property must BUY food. If everyone steals their property without compensating them they will not be able to BUY food. So until we can "copy food" don't steal their property. Get it? Good!
People do have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, it isn't relevent that the movie industries continue to make movies in the face of piracy and no where in the constitution does it say that you should "ingnore unconstitutional laws."
I assume that both the Professor and the Student must sign Microsoft's license.
Hmmmm... If you don't sign you can't take an important CS class and if you do sign and later work on open source you'll be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life waiting for the Microsoft lawsuit alleging copyright infringements.
Slashdot Mirror
"As a counter-point, I'd bring up Stephen King's experiment, where he allowed free download of his book and asked for a tiny donation in return. Very few of the people who downloaded the book paid for it and the project was scrapped."
My wife is a BIG Steven King fan and purchased ever chapter of "The Plant" (The ebook to which you refer.)
The project was not scrapped. He did finish the book and on his web site he stated that he made more money from that book than from other books that were sold through regular publishers.
The fact that his sales have gone up when he makes his ebooks available for free should not be taken as a green light to pirate ebooks (or anything else.)
The copyright holders have the right to distribute their works as they see fit and it is not for consumers to decide the distribution method for them.
We should instead try to educate people. If there is a business model that allows one to give a product away and still make a descent living I'm sure that a lot of us would be interested.
"The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Let's see 20 years would put us back to 1982 pre-Windows days. His statement is total bullshit!
I can only wonder what backroom deal AMD has cut with Microsoft.
that most people don't realize when they buy a piece of hardware that it uses the operating system to replace a few chips in the device and that means using more CPU cycles to run the equipment.
They probably don't even realize that their computer isn't as fast as it could be.
Maybe someday this will blow up in Microsoft's face when people can't understand why a Linux box runs so much faster than the Microsoft boxes.
The internet is still much like the old west. It is lawless and wide open. If you aren't dealing with a known company you need to be extra careful.
When you buy something at an online auction you should consider paying though a trusted third party. Basically the third party can hold your payment until you receive the merchandise.
Have you ever noticed that if you put the word "The" and the acronym "IRS" together it spells "Theirs"
"Microsoft insists that such thinking represented the old Microsoft. In interviews, several of its key program managers warned that underestimating Microsoft's ability to meet the computer security challenge might be as foolhardy as was misjudging its ability to turn itself into a dominant Internet player."
So, what Microsoft is saying is that because they can abuse the Monopoly power of their OS to extend their presents into the Internet services sector, we should believe that they can secure their software??
The title of the article is: "Microsoft Programmers Focus on Secure Software." I can only wonder where they found some secure software on which to focus.
Well that was a rather depressing vision of the not too distant future. What's really sad is that it is probably not too far off base.
You can say "well just don't use their services" but you had better be prepared NEVER to surf the web again because people are like sheep and there will always be enough people who do pay to keep the corporations screwing us forever.
Sadly, everything is about taking as much money from as many people as possible and we have jerk politicians like Senator Hollins who are willing to take campain contributions in trade for helping the corporations to do just that. All so the jackass can keep his high paying job.
Politicians will tell you that we need to pay high wages to attract quality. I say that money doesn't attract quality, money attracts greed.
As long as the police followed due process in obtaining a warrent, I don't see a problem.
Believe it or not sometimes it is necessary for law enforcement officials to invade our privacy and that's why a warrent is required. A warrent must be issued by a Judge and if the warrent isn't given out capriciously then it should be honored.
Yes, I believe that you are correct. I think it was the bnetd web site that had the graphics.
This is about as close to a "frivolous" lawsuit as you can get.
I think this is going to be laughed out of court. Well, it may not be quite that bad but basically Blizzard is saying that the bnetd people infringed on their copyright because the bnetd server does what it needs to do to be compatible with the battlenet server. (Well no duh!) If we applied the same standards I would guess that StarOffice is in deep trouble because of what it does to be able to load Word documents.
I believe that the lawsuit also says that the bnetd people used some graphics taken from Blizzard. If this is true then that could be a copyright infringement but I doubt that it caused Blizzard any significant damage and defiantly isn't a show stopper.
So I think the score will be: bnetd 1, Blizzard 0.
Mandrake isn't out of the woods yet. The boost of support has made them temporarily cash flow positive but as new club memberships drop off and expenses remain constant they'll be in the red again.
.15% of users to become club members.
They need about 55,000 members paying an average of $85.00 per year to cover expenses. They feel that this goal is reachable based on their estimates of the number of Linux users. By their estimates they would only need
If you like Mandrake and want it to survive please help out. If you haven't become a member yet do so. The cost is less than two lattés per month. If you are already a member and know Mandrake users who are not then try to convince them that it is in their own best interests to voluntarily support companies who support the Linux community.
If I were part of Brilliant Digital, I would be bracing myself for lawsuits. The first DoS attack that comes from someone taking control of their trojans will open them up for big legal liability.
No matter how many "We will not be held responsible" statements they have in their license agreement, they won't be held harmless from the damage done to a third party.
When you think about it, any program that automatically goes out and updates itself could be a problem if a blackhat is able to fool the client into installing the blackhat's update.
"While it's no StarOffice, this glowing review may help people realize that Microsoft is not the only option."
I guess that is the crux of the matter. Since StarOffice is superior, why would I pay for the Think Free Office suit unless Sun's new pricing scheme makes is a lot more expensive?
The real things to consider are functionality, interoperability and price.
Microsoft Office is known for having a lot of functionality. In my opinion it has WAY more then I need. For example, I hardly ever need to write a virus to destroy the piece of mind of the average computer user. I find that now days the entertainment industries are doing an adequate job by sending there paid flunky Politicians like Sen. Hollins and friends to screw over the American people. It would be a good thing to remove that man from the equation. (Vote him out. No violence please.) But I digress.
StarOffice also has a lot of functionality and again, probably more than I need. If the price of StarOffice does not become prohibitive then really the only thing that concerns me is the interoperability issue.
Unfortunately in order to be competitive an office suite must interpolate with what most people use. Whether official or unofficial there usually is a standard that most people use. One of the biggest issues that I have with Microsoft is that they try to set standards that are proprietary. If you will not or can not be compatible with that standard then you can't compete. Further, the only way that Microsoft can set proprietary standards is through the use of their Monopoly power. Times have changed and we need new laws that require that standards be open so that no large corporation can leverage their Monopoly power in the way that Microsoft does. Hmmm.. I seem to have digressed again.
So, to sum it up. Unless StarOffice is way more expensive or the Think Free Office suite is superior in interoperability then I think I'll just continue to use StarOffice. Oh yeah... And Microsoft is an evil Corporation and Sen. Hollins is an asshole thinking only of his corporate benefactors and needs to go.
I guess I really like the idea of distributed computing. In a world where everyone works together with common goals we would be able to achieve almost anything. The flies in the ointment, however, are the few individuals who would get their rocks off by ruining it for everyone else, the same type of people who write virii.
Another networking subject that really interests me is wireless networking. I think that someday in the not too distant future we will see neighborhood networks forming and then a linking of various neighborhood networks to form a new kind of "internet." One that is absolutely not controlled by any group.
A lot of people who are against cloning feel that way due to moral beliefs. They may say it's because of concern for the newly created human being but it's really that they don't like man playing God.
Personally, I don't know where the science will lead us and maybe it's worth investigating. I don't like the idea of creating human beings just for the sake of doing it. We don't have a shortage of people on Earth.
Damn, I forgot to mod my post down myself and lost Karma to a moderator without a sense of humor. Now I'm going to have to post something meaningful.
Some of the "Findings" in Senator Hollings' bill:
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
I.E. He doesn't want you to be able to play your CD and record the analog output through the use of stereo jack cables etc.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
I.E He wants laws that will FORCE hardware makers to cripple ALL electronic components that might be used to convert and/or copy digital signals into unprotected analog signals. This would mean that you would be FORCED to pay for crippled equipment because that is all that would be available.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
He is referring to the rampant theft of intellectual property like mp3s etc.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
He is referring to consumers who are exercising their right of fair use but then abusing that legal right by sharing the files with others.
Notice the use of the word "consumers" and not citizens. His interests clearly are for the corporations and not for the average American.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
Ditto with the corporate interest thing.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
He repeats himself. He really wants to screw with our hardware.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
Yeah, as long as we don't expect to exercise our fair use rights.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
This bill would be changing the definition of "a legal manner", so your current expectations are irrelevant.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
Again, the "legitimate home use of digital content" will no longer include fair use. You will have to pay for content that is streamed to your home each time you listen or view it.
It goes on and on but I think everyone gets the idea. Pass the Vaseline and bend over.
"I am sick of having to read articles about laws that are going to impead or "unalienable rights" whell, they are being alientated."
/. anymore!
Yeah, I'm sick of it too. I don't think I'll read
"That new software, the core of Brilliant Digital's Altnet business plan, has the ability to "wake up" and weld the millions of computers on which it has been installed into a new peer-to-peer network, in which each computer can talk to the other. That network, which would be controlled by Brilliant Digital, would be used to distribute content or perform complicated distributed computing tasks for Brilliant Digital's clients."
This tells me that the trojan software that Brilliant fooled millions of people into installing is probably capable of launching a DOS attack if some bright young hacker would care to reverse engineer their software.
What's that on the horizon?? It looks like a herd of lawyers rushing to court to file lawsuits!
It would then fall under international law and be dependant on agreements that the US has with Russia in this case.
You are correct, however, that if the US has no formal agreements with the "offender's" country it would be hard to enforce.
This should be an interesting case that, hopefully, gets the law off the books due to being unconstitutional.
I don't really understand how the DMCA can apply here. Adobe's PDF files are in no way protected from copying by their "protection." You can easily copy the entire file just as you would copy any other file. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it only prevents you from printing the file. So, does AEBPR circumvent copy protection or just re-enable needed functionality?
"Yes, and the courts are totally infallable. The courts decided that 2600 was in the wrong. The courts decided that Napster should die. The courts have repeatedly decided that AOL/TW, MPAA, RIAA, Vivendi, you name it, are beyond reproach. Face it, sometimes their definitions and conclusions are total bullshit and not something we should accept as correct"
The fact that you don't agree with the law is irrelevant. You still don't have a right to ignore it. Work to change it.
>> Recording the Superbowl for your own use is "fair use" but strictly speaking giving the tape to another is probably a violation.
"Oh? So my giving away the only copy I have of something away is illegal? Gee, I guess that puts used book stores and yard sales on par with the chop shop in NYC. No doubt they're next on Valenti's hitlist."
Read my post dude. It is a fact that if you record something from television for your own use it is legal. If you give that take to someone else it is breaking the law. (Strictly speaking.) It has nothing to do with book stores are yard sales.
"Don't be a jackass. It was an analogy. I never said it was going to happen or had even any chance of doing so. It was an example of this exact same problem applied to something that has inherently been un-mass-copyable, much like information a few centuries ago. The position taken by the status quo side looked stupid, and rightly so. A resource suddenly becomes infinitely available at almost no expense, limited only in the uniqueness of new variations. And what do you propose in response? Let's ignore it and maintain an artificial scarcity! Let's ignore all the positive consequences of this ability and arrest anyone trying to use them!"
I was not the one being a "jackass." The fantasy that you put forth was not worth commenting on. But if you insist...
We at this time do NOT have a way to "copy food." We must BUY food. The people who create intellectual property must BUY food. If everyone steals their property without compensating them they will not be able to BUY food. So until we can "copy food" don't steal their property. Get it? Good!
You talk a lot but you don't say much...
People do have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, it isn't relevent that the movie industries continue to make movies in the face of piracy and no where in the constitution does it say that you should "ingnore unconstitutional laws."
You are WAY off base in all of your comments.
I assume that both the Professor and the Student must sign Microsoft's license.
Hmmmm... If you don't sign you can't take an important CS class and if you do sign and later work on open source you'll be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life waiting for the Microsoft lawsuit alleging copyright infringements.
I will miss their cute little cow commercials!