No, GPL violation would be breech of contract. It is true though, that someone could argue that they had never accepted the terms of the GPL. In this case they could be charged with copyright violation, but I'm not sure a judge is going to believe that someone distributing GPL'ed code had refused to accept the license. That makes it more complicated that a simple copyright violation.
Take this example:
Say I wrote some nice code to do reed-solomon encoding. You write me and email requesting a copy of the code. I send you and email with the code attached, saying that if you use it, you're agreeing to the terms of a license that's also attached.
I think in this case it would be pretty easy to get a judge to rule, that by using the code, you had accepted the terms of the license. If a judge ruled that you had accepted the license, then you would be subject to whatever penalties that the license provides for violation when you break it. If it would work out better for you get out of the license and be charged with copyright violation, I'm not so sure a judge would allow it. Expecially, since, if you did accept the contract, it might be possible to have the contract enforced AND to sue you for copyright violation.
For instance, given the cost structure of their intensive promotions, it is not necessarily true that they can substantially lower the prices of whole CDs or offer singles at reduces prices.
Again, the point is: They're going to have to change their business model, if they want to stay in business.
You spend a lot of time talking about how much money they loose on promotions. Big deal. It's not written in stone somewhere that they have to do this. It's not even as if they've always done this, and it sure doesn't make me feel sorry for them. They make plenty of money, despite their cluelessness, as a result of their unfair contracts.
Internet downloads have also been around for some time, before P2P...
Yeah, but my 386 with its 40MB HDD just wasn't up to the task of storing a whole record collection.
It is reasonable to suspect that RIAA played a key role. If you could point to a truly organic artist, that didn't depend on RIAA's millions, that truly created their popularity through P2P and other sources, that enjoys any sort of mainstream popularity, then you might at least have a scintilla of evidence to back up your case. But you don't, thus I think your case is weak.
Bach, Mozart, etc. They are plenty of artists who have achived popularity outside the RIAA's oligopoly. You seem to think the only way that music will ever be created is if the RIAA exists to overpromote it. Here:
http://independent-artists.com/
That said, you're being foolish. Since when does not offering exactly the service that you want give you the right to steal service? Who says even if RIAA were to deliver the "right" service for the "right" price that this piracy would stop? Or do you just set the price so ridiculously low that your time cannot possible be worth less?
That's not what I said. I said they are "failing to satisfy market demand." There is a market for something. They could fill it. They choose not to. It's pretty clear cut in that regard.
Just because the artist only gets a fraction of each CD sold in royalties does not mean the artist is getting ripped off. It's not like the only other cost is the cost of the CD and the packaging. What you're really paying for are all of RIAA's other services, especially the marketing for the artist you're listening to and the 9 other artists that never quite took off (not to mention talent scouts etc).
Actually, yes it does. You clearly are not very familiar with the terms of your average record contract. Advertisment is at the artist's expense. Studio costs are too. The artists royalties are taken by the record company until they are paid back.
Besides there are a lot of rich artists.
Yeah, but most of them didn't get their money from the RIAA. The made money via live performance, endorsements, etc.
None of this is to say that I like the characters behind the recording industry, but that your assertions do not really amount to a meaningful indictment--and certainly not justification of piracy. You think they're irrelevant? Fine, then prove it by not listening to RIAA's pirated music, it's only a very small portion of the music that you could theoretically listen to, right?
First, I think the RIAA is becoming irrelevant, not recording artists. Big difference. As for "justification of piracy," I don't really think that would be constructive to argue. Next, not listening to RIAA owned music woundn't prove or disprove the necessity of the RIAA itself.
You last two paragraps seem to indicate that you've totally missed my point: The RIAA has failed to provide a good alternative to Napster.
RIAA only has a very small fraction of the music out there, so it shouldn't be too hard? Right??
I never said that. I said some new artists are not signing with them. That still leaves 100 years of music that is still under copyright, and controlled exclusively by them.
But no, you probably will claim that these technologies cannot be adapted to the intellectual property concerns of the industry. That's BS and I'm calling you on it.
Holy crap, dude. Slow down. You've completely missed the point again. I'm saying: Internet distribution has the potential to put the RIAA out of business if they refuse to acknowledge it. Get it? Some other company could easily come along and offer better and cheaper music then the RIAA is producing, while actually compensating the artists fairly.
Their behavior, their demonstrated intent to better enable piracy that constitutes the vast vast majority of their use and their absolute lack of focus on anything that would support noninfringing uses is obvious and detestable. That's why Napster and numerous others have died.
Actually, I find the fact the the RIAA still deducts 10% for "breakage" detestible, but you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.
What exactly is the industry doing wrong here? They're providing violators of their copyright ample opportunity to correct the situation before they attempt to address the matter legally. While this may be the easy way out for the industry, it is also beneficial to the user that just might arguably be unaware that he had copyrighted material or that he can be held to account for it.
What are they doing wrong?
Everything.
First off, they're failing to offer their songs in any other format than CD. If I want an mp3 of "Enter Sandman" there's no way for me to get it other than pay $17 for a CD. They're failng to satisfy market demand.
Second, they completely rip off those artists whose right they claim to be protecting. Most artists would get more money if I mailed them a quarter, than if I bought their CD.
The RIAA is sitting on a dying business model. They just aren't needed anymore. I can distribute my music via the internet, or sell CDs off my website. They refuse to accept and embrace new technology, so they will die.
The internet is here to stay. It's a great means of delivering data. They should look into it.
Instead of offering a LEGAL, better alternative to Napster, they sued them out of existence. Then another network popped up. Then they sued it. Then another network popped up. These morons need to get with the program and realize that there's demand out the for electronically distributed music.
If I could legally download music, from a site the fairly compensated the arist, I'd be all over it.
What part of P2P makes the industry obsolete exactly?
The part that makes it so that someone doesn't need $1,000,000 in start-up capital to mass produce music. They're done for. And it's not P2P that makes them obsolete, it the internet itself.
If you want to do P2P and claim that neither you nor the artist "need" RIAA, then do it without misappropriating copyrighted material.
Small problem here: Even "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted. And don't forget that if you want the RIAA to sell your album, you have to sign a contract that will not allow you to sell your album by other means.
up and coming artists are still signing with major record labels by and large, despite the existance of the P2P that you claim makes the industry irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding, or should I say...NOT?
Many "up and coming artists" aren't signing with the RIAA anymore, but you won't see these people on MTV, so you probably don't know about them. More and more artists and consumers are getting wise to their BS and getting their music elsewhere.
Ditch 3 of the 4 programs that do the same thing. Seriously. Why do I need 4 CD-R burning programs? Just give me the one that works the best, that's *all I care about* - and make sure it's labeled "CD Burner" so I don't have to decipher "gkdesbUISO."
What you are actually suggesting is a really bad idea. It's poor interface design. The idea shouldn't be to remove features until the UI is simple enough.
I could design the simplest computer ever. It would have one button, and that comes pre-pressed for you by the factory. It would be the simplest computer ever, but it would also be worthless.
Your plan removes the users ability to grow. They can't learn new programs if they're not there, and there are plenty of reason to have more than one burner/mail client/browser. What should be done is to have a default web browser, and then additional web browsers, CD burners, etc. Think about this idea:
The first time you run your distro, you tell it if you want it to show only the default program to do something, or all the availible programs. (This could even be grouped under another option like "Newbie vs. Typical Settings") If you've chosen simplified menus, you click Programs->Internet->Web Browser. If you right click on "Web Browser" it should give you the options "Show all availible Web Browsers" and "Change default Web Browser".
This way you get the simplicity of having one button called Web Browser without throwing away the flexibility of having more than one.
Make sure "regular" users *only* need the first CD. In the case of a 3 CD distro like Mandrake, make the additional CDs required only for developers and/or international users.
Size isn't really a concern. Most new users have new computers. This means that a 2GB install is no big deal for them. They would much rather have everything installed by default, than have to go around looking for it later.
If you wanted to make the Linux UI really nice you could make it so if you right click "Web Browser" and select "Update" it automatically installs the newest version for you. That's the type of UI enhancement that many would die for.
A distro that implements my suggestions and in which all the applications actually work with it properly would be pretty killer.
If you're talking about somebody who is intentionally wardriving looking for networks that he/she can get into and explore for juicy stuff, then I'll disagree.
Certainly, the admins of such networks have acted irresponsibly (assuming it wasn't some incredible new hack that broke into a secured network); but that doesn't mean the wardriver has no culpability in this situation.
This is one of those areas where the law can't cover everything. It's wrong to walk into an open house and take things when you know the owners didn't want you in there. Whether or not the door was open, and whether or not there was a welcome mat on the porch, you damned well know you shouldn't walk into a stranger's house and take their things.
And when you did, it wouldn't be the owner's fault that you're a worthless amoral turd. It would still be yours; whether or not they were stupid.
The point is, how can I tell that I'm not supposed to be on a network?
In New York State, where I live, the computer crime laws state a person must defeat an access control mechanism when accessing a computer for it to be considered tresspass. That means: If your computer is accessible via a public network and with no password, it can assumed to be open to the public.
If you leave your "juicy stuff" on a computer with no password, on a publicly accessible network, it your fault. It's like posting it on a webpage (they fall under that definition). If I visit the webpage, passwordless FTP server, windows share, etc where you put all this information I should be legally in the clear. You are the one who put out there for the public. If you didn't meant to: "How the hell should I know?" Your incompetentcy shouldn't mean that I'm a criminal. There shouldn't be any arguement over what my intent was in looking for/accessing that information. You put it there! You made it publicly accessible.
This law just makes sense. If you want to be able to take someone to court for accessing your network, you should have an access control mechanism in place on that network. If you aren't making minimal the effort to control who gets onto your network, then you shouldn't expect the courts to care.
I have no problem with the assumption that open APs are meant to be that way.
Finding an open AP is like finding a PC set up and running in the town square. If I sit down at it and it doesn't ask me for a password, then I can assume that the public was meant to be able to access it.
Your "It's wrong to walk into an open house and take things when you know the owners didn't want you in there." analogy fails for lots of reasons. The airwaves are a public resource. You don't own them and neither do I. The obviousness of entering someone else's house isn't there with wireless networks. If I see an ESSID "linksys" how do I know if that person doesn't want me using their network? Maybe they want me to so they left the router in is default open state. Maybe they didn't, but were too incompetent to configure the router to implement their desires. Maybe they want me to, AND didn't know how to to configure the router to implement their desires and it just happend to work for them that way.
The point is, it's more like leaving something by the side of the road and having it get taken then inside your house. As a little kid I left my bigwheel at the end of our driveway and someone took it. They had a reasonable right to assume that it was there for anyone who wanted it to take, or it was going to get picked up with the trash. I'm sure the guy who took it wasn't an "amoral turd" for taking it. It was my fault for leaving it there. I may have been too young to understand what would happen at the time, but that doesn't make they buy who took it home to his kid a bad guy.
I left something publily accessible and in such a position that someone could reasonably assume they could just take it. You're doing the same thing with your bandwidth when you set up an unsecured AP.
Jesus christ. How many times do I read this.
Go out and buy any one of a hundred multi-button USB mice and plug it into a Mac.
Unless you have a LAPTOP and want it to have more than one button. Your suggestion isn't really a viable option on a plane, train, bus, or a lot of the many of places people buy laptops so they can use them in.
Also, the round mice went out a long long time ago. Apple ship very nice optical mice with all Macs now. They also have a "no-button" design - rocking the mouse forward slightly clicks the mouse button. This is a very ergonomic design and means that you can use your whole hand to click, which reduces tendon strain substantially and makes the mice much better suited to anyone who suffers from RSI.
I have to use one of these pieces of shit in a music studio and that's about the only way I can describe it. I've considered dragging my own mouse up there just so I don't have to deal with that damned thing. Ergonomic my ass. Making the entire mouse a button means you can't rest your hand on the mouse. How exactly is that ergonomic? They've gone from a mouse that was nearly unclickable to one that you can't help but click accidentally. You have to rest your wrist eventually.
If you want to dislike Macs, pick a legitimate reason. If I had a dime for every person who says "I don't like Macs because x" and hasn't actually ever walked into an Apple store...
Macs still ship with one button mice and trackpads. Seems like a pretty legitimate gripe to me, especially since you can't exactly add more buttons to a laptop. And why they hell, and I going to go to an Apple store if I don't like Macs? Duh. Besides the fact that not everywhere in the US has Apple stores. Having not been inside an Apple store makes none of my points any less valid.
Look, Mac's coming with one button mice, means that they come with crappy mice, in not just mine, but lots of people's opinions. Crappy hardware is a legitmate gripe. Say...the sound card had a mono output only. Yeah, you can replace it, but it's still something worth bitching about. Say...your computer comes with a CGA video card and montior. Yeah, you can replace it, but it's still something worth bitching about.
Just because a design flaw can be fixed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people want to buy computers that they like "out of the box". (Isn't that what Macs are supposed to be?) They don't want to go out and buy an new mouse and worry about whether it will work with their Mac. (Yes, I know it will work, but does the average Joe? No, and it's a headache for them to find that out.)
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act. The only reason Verizon is withholding the names is so all their subscribers. don't migrate to other services in order to prevent from being caught. I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy, but of course it's perfectly OK to steal music from artists. Don't even bother replying that the analogy is incorrect, both people stole.
That's a really stupid, oversimplified opinion.
First off we're (almost) all criminals. Have you ever got a parking ticket? Then you're a criminal. Ever publicly perform "Happy Birthday" without sending in a royalty check?
Second, you clearly didn't RTFA. This case isn't about whether Verizon ever has to turn over the info, it's about what has to be proven and what procedures must be followed for it to happen. The DMCA is attempting to lower these standards.
Third, just because someone accuses you of a criminal, doesn't mean you are one. In America, you are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. See (2). Certain standards must be met before the police are given the right to search my house.
Fourth, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. Why should this information be given directly to them? They've already shown that they want to be a vigilante group. Where's the buffer that protects me from them?
Fifth, downloading mp3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
Finally, even criminals deserve a certain amount of privacy. Quote: "the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy" Actally, that not really as much a violation of is privacy as it is right right to move around freely. There aren't TV cameras inside his house broadcasting it for everyone to see, and there shouldn't be. Nor is he locked in the stocks in public square, so he obviously has some privacy left, although judging by your comment, you think he should be. That's really fucked up. Also, their had to be court proceedings in order for this to happen. The RIAA wants to be held to a lower standard than this.
Your "Well they're criminals, so fuck 'em!" attitude is really sad. It shows complete disrespect or total lack of understanding of some of the founding principles of the American criminal justice system, as well as general concepts of crime and punishment.
That attitude is them same one that got a lot of people burnt as witches. I could send you off to experience a justice system with fewer protections than ours.
Re:Good to see Linus take a stand.
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
I meant to say thank god. That was quite a typo:)
Good to see Linus take a stand.
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Am I the only one that see it or didn't Linus just take a stand on DRM?
What he said was that you can't hide encryption keys in the binary, but it's perfectly okay to have DRM as long as the key are published as part of the source.
What this means is: "You can't distrubte a (Hollywood) DRM'ed Linux kernel"
Yes, he says DRM is allowed, but only good DRM. The kind of DRM I'd like to have on my computer, so that I'm in control.
Typical Hollywood, pipe-dream DRM relies on me not having access to the keys. Linus has just said that this isn't allowed. The only type of DRM you can have is the type of "DRM" that SSH already enforces for me. People with the right keys can get stuff and those without it can't, and I can change the keys.
I wouldn't mind at all, having bullet-proof DRM that I had the keys for. (And knew they couldn't be changed on me.) It would actually be a bit reassuring. Say you keep your journal on your PC. It would be nice to have some DRM on your system to keep someone from just posting it to the net.
The DRM he's saying is allowed is very simlar to the "DRM" we already have on our systems: Unix file permissions.
The whole point of Hollywood DRM is to take root access away from the person sitting in front of the computer. He's just said that any keys compiled into the kernel would have to be published, and since the only way to have tough to crack DRM is at the kernel level (or below), that can't be done.
Yay Linus for satisfying the both the idealists, and those who just want to bitch about OSS zealots, and that god Linus isn't one of them.:)
The practical res of 35 is 2k, 4k if you wish to be pedantic. Digital technology will pass this line soon enough, and then beyond. Film is dead. It was an amazing technology a century ago, but has failed to outrun the beast that is Moore's law.
Film isn't dead. There are some other HUGE hurdles digital cameras have to overcome before their image quality is really as good as film.
First off, there's the dynamic range issue. Digital cameras have only a finite number of bits of precision with which they store store information about the intensity of each color.
Second, the images you get off your digital camera are compressed. Even if digital cameras had the same resolution and dynamic range as film, they don't have the capactiy to store any reasonable number of 8MP images.
Third, it's trivial to get more reolution with film, just make the film bigger. Not so with digital cameras. In order to match the resolution of the best large format 8x10 film, you're going to need a 960 megapixel camera. Combine that with the fact that to really match it you need the images to be uncompressed, and you're talking 2.88 gigabytes per frame! Yeah we can store a still image that big, but just imagine 30fps video. Digital cameras are nowhere near the capability of a medium like IMAX.
Digital cameras are great for home users, or those on a budget, but the pros will be using film for a very long time to come. Possibly forever. What's to stop us from coming up with better film before digital cameras catch up? It's not like the semiconductor industy is the only one that technological advances are made in.
Your prognosis of the death of film is extremely premature. It may never happen at all. Don't assume that just because there is a new technology on the block, it will automaticlly replace all existing technology.
What if some substantial (either quantity or quality) amount of their proprietary code has made its way into the Linux source? If IBM put it there, should they not be punished for doing so? If RedHat et.al are making/made money from it, shouldn't they pay royalties? I know that SCO is the popular bad guy right now, but what if they have a point, does this still make them bad?
SCO is not claiming IBM put actual SCO code into Linux. They are claming that that IBM took concepts/techniques/whatever that were trade secerts and gave them to linux developers. They claim that this is the only thing that could have made Linux what it is today.
I hope SCO's CEO ends up as IBM's CEO's pool boy. SCO wants someone to come along and buy them out to shut them up, but I hope IBM crushes them and we all get to watch them go bankrupt from deliberately pissing off their entire customer base. Then, when they do, IBM or Redhat can buy SCO's IP for a song:)
Reminds me of my favorite hockey cheer:
Awwwww...see ya asshole! You goon!
Take for instance LaTeX- I could certainly cross-compile the full distro. I could even show that I'm super l33t and run LyX under X11... But why the hell would I want to waste my time doing that?
You probably don't have to complie anything, just grab the right packages from debian-arm.
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
As far as note-taking, have you tried IQnotes?
Not so for the Zaurus... it seems people are too busy cheerleading that no one has time for any software development.
I don't think that's a fair statement. There are 807 applications currently listed in the Zaurus Software Index. Seems like someone's doing software development.
Man, I was really hoping you'd indulge me with the ursury thing.
You're getting pretty boring. You make obviously wrong assumptions in ever single post, Like this: Your obtaining of the music means you have obtained music you would have otherewise paid for.
And, as I expected, you once again fail to recognize the difference between potential and actual profits.
What do they have to do with the illegality of stealing music?
Blah, blah, blah. that's not what were agruing.
Well, looks like you've accepted the reality the copyright infringement is illegal, but not theft.
Now that we're done with that, maybe you can explain why you seem to have no issues about libel at all...
Apparently, you are incapable of the simple concept of stealing profits. Next.
Wow. This is getting pretty amusing. You just don't get it still.
You have no grasp of the law do you?
Stealing profits would be either embezzlement or theft.
But guess what? You're talking about potential profits. They're not real. They're all in your head. Unfortuately for you, something has to actually exist first for you to steal it.
I was really serious. You should work on your reading comprehension skills. Let's see if you can comprehend the concept of potential vs. actual profits. My hopes aren't very high.
You and I both know it is theft.
Nope. You think it's theft, but I know better. Copyright infringement is much closer to patent infringement or plagiarism.
It's also pretty funny how much space you waste calling be a theif. Since I pointed out the criminal actions of the RIAA's members, I must be a criminal myself right?
At this point I'm just wondering how far out into never never land your half-assed logic will get you. I wonder if you'll start saying copyright infringement is murder because profits are being "killed". Or maybe it's assault on profits? Rape maybe? Abortion of profits?
Oh shit! I got it.....it's terrorism!
I tell you what, you get bonus "what planet is this guy from points" if you'll explain to me why copyright infringement is ursury.
You can quote dictionary.com all day, but it will never change the fact that you are wrong and refuse to admit it. Next
And I suppose dictionary.com is wrong too?
Just because you like to conceptualize something as theft, doesn't make it theft.
It is illegal to obtain a product without paying for it without consent of the creator. This is insanely simple; do try to keep up, okay?
Obviously, dumbass. What it is not, is theft. You loose. It's copyright infringement, not theft. Are you really so incapable of understanding this?
Let me reiterate one more time:
Downloading MP3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
I'm right, you're wrong. illegal!=stealing
What's so damned hard about this concept?
Let me break it down very simply:
Murder is illegal.
Theft is illegal.
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder, theft and copyright infringment are all different crimes.
Get it now?
You can try and say murder is theft because it's "taking" someone's life, but you'll just be wrong. Just because you can make an analogy between two things, does not mean they're equivalent. Try to work on your reading comprehension skills a little. I never said that copyright infringement wasn't illegal, only that it wasn't theft.
Gates has always said that (paraphrased) Microsoft makes mistakes all the time, and that just one particularly bad misstep could doom Microsoft's prospects. The key to survival is to outlive the mistakes, to make fewer mistakes than the competition, and to keep tons of money in the bank instead paying them out in dividends, but these things can't always be done. This is why his company has tried to lowbal investor expectations every quarter, and exceed those expectations every quarter.
No, acutally it's tax evasion. Lots of companies do this. They hold onto money instead of paying it out so their stockholders don't have to pay taxes on the dividends. Then the stockholders still get the money via an increase in the stock price. That why they finally have to pay a dividend. So they pay tax on all that cash they made. (Yes i know you could argue that it's double taxed, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they're trying to evade one of those taxes)
Then copying is stealing, because you're intentionally depriving them of money.
Any other brain-busters?
Nope, that doesn't work.
Give me five dollars.
By your logic, your refusal to give me money is stealing.
You see, you can't just decide to just ignore the rest of the definiton and use the one word from it that you can twist to make it say what you want. You should note the prescence of the words taking and removal. These are part of the definition. You can't just ignore them at will, unless you're planning to ignore the meaning of the word theft, and therefore be wrong. If someone downloads an MP3 off the internet, nothing the record company owns disappears.
Here's that defintion again: The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Why don't they just call it Linux?
SARCASM:After all, no one could ever confuse a web browser with an OS.
Since Mozilla is cross platform this will be great. This way when I say "I just installed Linux" no one will know what I just installed OR what OS I'm using. All they'll know for sure is that I have a computer:) Imagine the fun!
Hello?
Redhat tech support here.
Hi I'm having trouble with Linux.
How so?
Well, I can't get to any webpages.
Have you tried using anything else besides Linux?
No, Linux is the only thing I have installed.
Do you have the newest version?
Yeah, I just updated it last night.
See, no confusion at all.
Seriously, the Mozilla team should find a new name. It's now like their new firebird name is well established already. I don't think it's even been a month since they picked this name.
They have no good excuse to keep this name, and doing so will make them look very bad. Their full of shit if they think keeping the firebird name won't cause confusion. I can prove them wrong with one sentence:
I just installed firebird.
See it just created confusion, now drop the name already, geez.
The only thing that is more pathetic than a Mac gamer [redvsblue.com] is someone who claims to be a Linux gamer. Let's face it, if you want to play games then you need to run Windows.
Not if you want to play Linux games:P
Seriously, he said "linux gamer" for a reason. If he ran windows he wouldn't be a linux gamer anymore, now would he?
BTW, it a lot easier to run windows games under linux, than linux games under windows. That, and some gamers actually use their system for other things too.
Windows is the absolute best OS out there for gaming at this point unless you want to play on a console.
No, it's the most popular OS for gaming. Big difference. Best is a subjective choice which depends on the actual games you want to play (among other things).
The problem here is that there are no penalties for abuse of the patent system. Claiming to have invented something you obviously did not should be treated as fraud.
Basically, the current U.S. patent system has descended into a registry system. Filing and having a patent accepted is having put on file "I invented X on date Y" It's just not possible for them to check applications thuroughly enough. They would have to employ someone "skilled" in every art.
If you combine this with the ability to loose by default in the US legal system, you get some very nasty effects. Take this example:
Step one:
I try to patent the mouse. I have odds that this patent will slip through and be accepted. If it does not I just try some other technology.
Step two:
I use my new patent to file lawsuits against small companies for small amounts of money. It would cost them more to get my patent thrown out that to settle.
Currently, the practice above isn't even illegal. It's a blatant abuse of the system but there is no provision to punish anyone for abusing it. People who pull the kind of shit should go to laid. Their patent application was a lie.
If I pretended to own a piece of property I had no real rights to, and charged people money to park there, I would be guilty of fraud. The same should be true for IP.
I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.
Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.
Because if we didn't our computers would crash when we ran out of RAM. Seriouly, a lot of programs don't cope well with being told: there's no more RAM left on the system, you can't create that object.
Swap is a good thing. Right now my PC has 512MB of RAM this is more than I need for just about anything I do. Right now my RAM is 31% free and my 2GB swap space is 78% free. Why the hell should so much be in the swap space when I have free RAM? Because that information is old and rarely accessed. Say I write a program that just creates a 100MB data object and then sits there for days waiting for something to happen. Eventually all that data will end up being stored in swap space. By keeping it in swap I have lots of RAM free for any programs that need memory space which they'll actually use all the time.
The problem isn't as simple as: "swap space is slow so it must be bad." Swap being slow costs you speed when you're using it, but it also gives you speed, by letting you use your RAM for things like disk caching. You have to look at the cost vs the benfit of having swap, not just the cost.
The MPAA is planning on using a technique that will protect its rights over the works its member studios have produced.
This technique doesn't involve subpoenas to ISPs to get the identities of p2p users.
This technique doesn't involve scare tactics targeted at network admins.
This technique does not involve arrests, fine, or prison sentences.
This technique does not involve some cockeyed "protection scheme" that renders the product absolutely useless in certain circumstances.
What the fuck do you guys want?
I want them to pay for it with their own fucking money. Uncle Sam isn't installing a security system in my place for free. Why should these goons get this for free, so that they have more money to do all those things we don't like?
Slashdot Mirror
GPL violation is copyright violation.
No, GPL violation would be breech of contract. It is true though, that someone could argue that they had never accepted the terms of the GPL. In this case they could be charged with copyright violation, but I'm not sure a judge is going to believe that someone distributing GPL'ed code had refused to accept the license. That makes it more complicated that a simple copyright violation.
Take this example:
Say I wrote some nice code to do reed-solomon encoding. You write me and email requesting a copy of the code. I send you and email with the code attached, saying that if you use it, you're agreeing to the terms of a license that's also attached.
I think in this case it would be pretty easy to get a judge to rule, that by using the code, you had accepted the terms of the license. If a judge ruled that you had accepted the license, then you would be subject to whatever penalties that the license provides for violation when you break it. If it would work out better for you get out of the license and be charged with copyright violation, I'm not so sure a judge would allow it. Expecially, since, if you did accept the contract, it might be possible to have the contract enforced AND to sue you for copyright violation.
For instance, given the cost structure of their intensive promotions, it is not necessarily true that they can substantially lower the prices of whole CDs or offer singles at reduces prices.
Again, the point is: They're going to have to change their business model, if they want to stay in business.
You spend a lot of time talking about how much money they loose on promotions. Big deal. It's not written in stone somewhere that they have to do this. It's not even as if they've always done this, and it sure doesn't make me feel sorry for them. They make plenty of money, despite their cluelessness, as a result of their unfair contracts.
Internet downloads have also been around for some time, before P2P...
Yeah, but my 386 with its 40MB HDD just wasn't up to the task of storing a whole record collection.
It is reasonable to suspect that RIAA played a key role. If you could point to a truly organic artist, that didn't depend on RIAA's millions, that truly created their popularity through P2P and other sources, that enjoys any sort of mainstream popularity, then you might at least have a scintilla of evidence to back up your case. But you don't, thus I think your case is weak.
Bach, Mozart, etc. They are plenty of artists who have achived popularity outside the RIAA's oligopoly. You seem to think the only way that music will ever be created is if the RIAA exists to overpromote it. Here:
http://independent-artists.com/
That said, you're being foolish. Since when does not offering exactly the service that you want give you the right to steal service? Who says even if RIAA were to deliver the "right" service for the "right" price that this piracy would stop? Or do you just set the price so ridiculously low that your time cannot possible be worth less?
That's not what I said. I said they are "failing to satisfy market demand." There is a market for something. They could fill it. They choose not to. It's pretty clear cut in that regard.
Just because the artist only gets a fraction of each CD sold in royalties does not mean the artist is getting ripped off. It's not like the only other cost is the cost of the CD and the packaging. What you're really paying for are all of RIAA's other services, especially the marketing for the artist you're listening to and the 9 other artists that never quite took off (not to mention talent scouts etc).
Actually, yes it does. You clearly are not very familiar with the terms of your average record contract. Advertisment is at the artist's expense. Studio costs are too. The artists royalties are taken by the record company until they are paid back.
Besides there are a lot of rich artists.
Yeah, but most of them didn't get their money from the RIAA. The made money via live performance, endorsements, etc.
None of this is to say that I like the characters behind the recording industry, but that your assertions do not really amount to a meaningful indictment--and certainly not justification of piracy. You think they're irrelevant? Fine, then prove it by not listening to RIAA's pirated music, it's only a very small portion of the music that you could theoretically listen to, right?
First, I think the RIAA is becoming irrelevant, not recording artists. Big difference. As for "justification of piracy," I don't really think that would be constructive to argue. Next, not listening to RIAA owned music woundn't prove or disprove the necessity of the RIAA itself.
You last two paragraps seem to indicate that you've totally missed my point: The RIAA has failed to provide a good alternative to Napster.
RIAA only has a very small fraction of the music out there, so it shouldn't be too hard? Right??
I never said that. I said some new artists are not signing with them. That still leaves 100 years of music that is still under copyright, and controlled exclusively by them.
But no, you probably will claim that these technologies cannot be adapted to the intellectual property concerns of the industry. That's BS and I'm calling you on it.
Holy crap, dude. Slow down. You've completely missed the point again. I'm saying: Internet distribution has the potential to put the RIAA out of business if they refuse to acknowledge it. Get it? Some other company could easily come along and offer better and cheaper music then the RIAA is producing, while actually compensating the artists fairly.
Their behavior, their demonstrated intent to better enable piracy that constitutes the vast vast majority of their use and their absolute lack of focus on anything that would support noninfringing uses is obvious and detestable. That's why Napster and numerous others have died.
Actually, I find the fact the the RIAA still deducts 10% for "breakage" detestible, but you probably don't even know what I'm talking about.
What exactly is the industry doing wrong here? They're providing violators of their copyright ample opportunity to correct the situation before they attempt to address the matter legally. While this may be the easy way out for the industry, it is also beneficial to the user that just might arguably be unaware that he had copyrighted material or that he can be held to account for it.
What are they doing wrong?
Everything.
First off, they're failing to offer their songs in any other format than CD. If I want an mp3 of "Enter Sandman" there's no way for me to get it other than pay $17 for a CD. They're failng to satisfy market demand.
Second, they completely rip off those artists whose right they claim to be protecting. Most artists would get more money if I mailed them a quarter, than if I bought their CD.
The RIAA is sitting on a dying business model. They just aren't needed anymore. I can distribute my music via the internet, or sell CDs off my website. They refuse to accept and embrace new technology, so they will die.
The internet is here to stay. It's a great means of delivering data. They should look into it.
Instead of offering a LEGAL, better alternative to Napster, they sued them out of existence. Then another network popped up. Then they sued it. Then another network popped up. These morons need to get with the program and realize that there's demand out the for electronically distributed music.
If I could legally download music, from a site the fairly compensated the arist, I'd be all over it.
What part of P2P makes the industry obsolete exactly?
The part that makes it so that someone doesn't need $1,000,000 in start-up capital to mass produce music. They're done for. And it's not P2P that makes them obsolete, it the internet itself.
If you want to do P2P and claim that neither you nor the artist "need" RIAA, then do it without misappropriating copyrighted material.
Small problem here: Even "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted. And don't forget that if you want the RIAA to sell your album, you have to sign a contract that will not allow you to sell your album by other means.
up and coming artists are still signing with major record labels by and large, despite the existance of the P2P that you claim makes the industry irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding, or should I say...NOT?
Many "up and coming artists" aren't signing with the RIAA anymore, but you won't see these people on MTV, so you probably don't know about them. More and more artists and consumers are getting wise to their BS and getting their music elsewhere.
Ditch 3 of the 4 programs that do the same thing. Seriously. Why do I need 4 CD-R burning programs? Just give me the one that works the best, that's *all I care about* - and make sure it's labeled "CD Burner" so I don't have to decipher "gkdesbUISO."
What you are actually suggesting is a really bad idea. It's poor interface design. The idea shouldn't be to remove features until the UI is simple enough.
I could design the simplest computer ever. It would have one button, and that comes pre-pressed for you by the factory. It would be the simplest computer ever, but it would also be worthless.
Your plan removes the users ability to grow. They can't learn new programs if they're not there, and there are plenty of reason to have more than one burner/mail client/browser. What should be done is to have a default web browser, and then additional web browsers, CD burners, etc. Think about this idea:
The first time you run your distro, you tell it if you want it to show only the default program to do something, or all the availible programs. (This could even be grouped under another option like "Newbie vs. Typical Settings") If you've chosen simplified menus, you click Programs->Internet->Web Browser. If you right click on "Web Browser" it should give you the options "Show all availible Web Browsers" and "Change default Web Browser".
This way you get the simplicity of having one button called Web Browser without throwing away the flexibility of having more than one.
Make sure "regular" users *only* need the first CD. In the case of a 3 CD distro like Mandrake, make the additional CDs required only for developers and/or international users.
Size isn't really a concern. Most new users have new computers. This means that a 2GB install is no big deal for them. They would much rather have everything installed by default, than have to go around looking for it later.
If you wanted to make the Linux UI really nice you could make it so if you right click "Web Browser" and select "Update" it automatically installs the newest version for you. That's the type of UI enhancement that many would die for.
A distro that implements my suggestions and in which all the applications actually work with it properly would be pretty killer.
Actually, I belive this would be the better link on this topic.
If you're talking about somebody who is intentionally wardriving looking for networks that he/she can get into and explore for juicy stuff, then I'll disagree. Certainly, the admins of such networks have acted irresponsibly (assuming it wasn't some incredible new hack that broke into a secured network); but that doesn't mean the wardriver has no culpability in this situation. This is one of those areas where the law can't cover everything. It's wrong to walk into an open house and take things when you know the owners didn't want you in there. Whether or not the door was open, and whether or not there was a welcome mat on the porch, you damned well know you shouldn't walk into a stranger's house and take their things. And when you did, it wouldn't be the owner's fault that you're a worthless amoral turd. It would still be yours; whether or not they were stupid.
The point is, how can I tell that I'm not supposed to be on a network?
In New York State, where I live, the computer crime laws state a person must defeat an access control mechanism when accessing a computer for it to be considered tresspass. That means: If your computer is accessible via a public network and with no password, it can assumed to be open to the public.
If you leave your "juicy stuff" on a computer with no password, on a publicly accessible network, it your fault. It's like posting it on a webpage (they fall under that definition). If I visit the webpage, passwordless FTP server, windows share, etc where you put all this information I should be legally in the clear. You are the one who put out there for the public. If you didn't meant to: "How the hell should I know?" Your incompetentcy shouldn't mean that I'm a criminal. There shouldn't be any arguement over what my intent was in looking for/accessing that information. You put it there! You made it publicly accessible.
This law just makes sense. If you want to be able to take someone to court for accessing your network, you should have an access control mechanism in place on that network. If you aren't making minimal the effort to control who gets onto your network, then you shouldn't expect the courts to care.
I have no problem with the assumption that open APs are meant to be that way.
Finding an open AP is like finding a PC set up and running in the town square. If I sit down at it and it doesn't ask me for a password, then I can assume that the public was meant to be able to access it.
Your "It's wrong to walk into an open house and take things when you know the owners didn't want you in there." analogy fails for lots of reasons. The airwaves are a public resource. You don't own them and neither do I. The obviousness of entering someone else's house isn't there with wireless networks. If I see an ESSID "linksys" how do I know if that person doesn't want me using their network? Maybe they want me to so they left the router in is default open state. Maybe they didn't, but were too incompetent to configure the router to implement their desires. Maybe they want me to, AND didn't know how to to configure the router to implement their desires and it just happend to work for them that way.
The point is, it's more like leaving something by the side of the road and having it get taken then inside your house. As a little kid I left my bigwheel at the end of our driveway and someone took it. They had a reasonable right to assume that it was there for anyone who wanted it to take, or it was going to get picked up with the trash. I'm sure the guy who took it wasn't an "amoral turd" for taking it. It was my fault for leaving it there. I may have been too young to understand what would happen at the time, but that doesn't make they buy who took it home to his kid a bad guy.
I left something publily accessible and in such a position that someone could reasonably assume they could just take it. You're doing the same thing with your bandwidth when you set up an unsecured AP.
Jesus christ. How many times do I read this. Go out and buy any one of a hundred multi-button USB mice and plug it into a Mac.
Unless you have a LAPTOP and want it to have more than one button. Your suggestion isn't really a viable option on a plane, train, bus, or a lot of the many of places people buy laptops so they can use them in.
Also, the round mice went out a long long time ago. Apple ship very nice optical mice with all Macs now. They also have a "no-button" design - rocking the mouse forward slightly clicks the mouse button. This is a very ergonomic design and means that you can use your whole hand to click, which reduces tendon strain substantially and makes the mice much better suited to anyone who suffers from RSI.
I have to use one of these pieces of shit in a music studio and that's about the only way I can describe it. I've considered dragging my own mouse up there just so I don't have to deal with that damned thing. Ergonomic my ass. Making the entire mouse a button means you can't rest your hand on the mouse. How exactly is that ergonomic? They've gone from a mouse that was nearly unclickable to one that you can't help but click accidentally. You have to rest your wrist eventually.
If you want to dislike Macs, pick a legitimate reason. If I had a dime for every person who says "I don't like Macs because x" and hasn't actually ever walked into an Apple store...
Macs still ship with one button mice and trackpads. Seems like a pretty legitimate gripe to me, especially since you can't exactly add more buttons to a laptop. And why they hell, and I going to go to an Apple store if I don't like Macs? Duh. Besides the fact that not everywhere in the US has Apple stores. Having not been inside an Apple store makes none of my points any less valid.
Look, Mac's coming with one button mice, means that they come with crappy mice, in not just mine, but lots of people's opinions. Crappy hardware is a legitmate gripe. Say...the sound card had a mono output only. Yeah, you can replace it, but it's still something worth bitching about. Say...your computer comes with a CGA video card and montior. Yeah, you can replace it, but it's still something worth bitching about.
Just because a design flaw can be fixed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people want to buy computers that they like "out of the box". (Isn't that what Macs are supposed to be?) They don't want to go out and buy an new mouse and worry about whether it will work with their Mac. (Yes, I know it will work, but does the average Joe? No, and it's a headache for them to find that out.)
Your privacy deserves to be gone if you commit an illegal act. The only reason Verizon is withholding the names is so all their subscribers. don't migrate to other services in order to prevent from being caught. I don't see anyone here crying about the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy, but of course it's perfectly OK to steal music from artists. Don't even bother replying that the analogy is incorrect, both people stole.
That's a really stupid, oversimplified opinion.
First off we're (almost) all criminals. Have you ever got a parking ticket? Then you're a criminal. Ever publicly perform "Happy Birthday" without sending in a royalty check?
Second, you clearly didn't RTFA. This case isn't about whether Verizon ever has to turn over the info, it's about what has to be proven and what procedures must be followed for it to happen. The DMCA is attempting to lower these standards.
Third, just because someone accuses you of a criminal, doesn't mean you are one. In America, you are supposed to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. See (2). Certain standards must be met before the police are given the right to search my house.
Fourth, the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency. Why should this information be given directly to them? They've already shown that they want to be a vigilante group. Where's the buffer that protects me from them?
Fifth, downloading mp3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
Finally, even criminals deserve a certain amount of privacy. Quote: "the Enron CEO being placed under house arrest with a tracking bracelet, violating his privacy" Actally, that not really as much a violation of is privacy as it is right right to move around freely. There aren't TV cameras inside his house broadcasting it for everyone to see, and there shouldn't be. Nor is he locked in the stocks in public square, so he obviously has some privacy left, although judging by your comment, you think he should be. That's really fucked up. Also, their had to be court proceedings in order for this to happen. The RIAA wants to be held to a lower standard than this.
Your "Well they're criminals, so fuck 'em!" attitude is really sad. It shows complete disrespect or total lack of understanding of some of the founding principles of the American criminal justice system, as well as general concepts of crime and punishment.
That attitude is them same one that got a lot of people burnt as witches. I could send you off to experience a justice system with fewer protections than ours.
I meant to say thank god. That was quite a typo :)
Am I the only one that see it or didn't Linus just take a stand on DRM?
:)
What he said was that you can't hide encryption keys in the binary, but it's perfectly okay to have DRM as long as the key are published as part of the source.
What this means is: "You can't distrubte a (Hollywood) DRM'ed Linux kernel"
Yes, he says DRM is allowed, but only good DRM. The kind of DRM I'd like to have on my computer, so that I'm in control.
Typical Hollywood, pipe-dream DRM relies on me not having access to the keys. Linus has just said that this isn't allowed. The only type of DRM you can have is the type of "DRM" that SSH already enforces for me. People with the right keys can get stuff and those without it can't, and I can change the keys.
I wouldn't mind at all, having bullet-proof DRM that I had the keys for. (And knew they couldn't be changed on me.) It would actually be a bit reassuring. Say you keep your journal on your PC. It would be nice to have some DRM on your system to keep someone from just posting it to the net.
The DRM he's saying is allowed is very simlar to the "DRM" we already have on our systems: Unix file permissions.
The whole point of Hollywood DRM is to take root access away from the person sitting in front of the computer. He's just said that any keys compiled into the kernel would have to be published, and since the only way to have tough to crack DRM is at the kernel level (or below), that can't be done.
Yay Linus for satisfying the both the idealists, and those who just want to bitch about OSS zealots, and that god Linus isn't one of them.
Film isn't dead. There are some other HUGE hurdles digital cameras have to overcome before their image quality is really as good as film.
Digital cameras are great for home users, or those on a budget, but the pros will be using film for a very long time to come. Possibly forever. What's to stop us from coming up with better film before digital cameras catch up? It's not like the semiconductor industy is the only one that technological advances are made in.
Your prognosis of the death of film is extremely premature. It may never happen at all. Don't assume that just because there is a new technology on the block, it will automaticlly replace all existing technology.
What if some substantial (either quantity or quality) amount of their proprietary code has made its way into the Linux source? If IBM put it there, should they not be punished for doing so? If RedHat et.al are making/made money from it, shouldn't they pay royalties? I know that SCO is the popular bad guy right now, but what if they have a point, does this still make them bad?
:)
SCO is not claiming IBM put actual SCO code into Linux. They are claming that that IBM took concepts/techniques/whatever that were trade secerts and gave them to linux developers. They claim that this is the only thing that could have made Linux what it is today.
I hope SCO's CEO ends up as IBM's CEO's pool boy. SCO wants someone to come along and buy them out to shut them up, but I hope IBM crushes them and we all get to watch them go bankrupt from deliberately pissing off their entire customer base. Then, when they do, IBM or Redhat can buy SCO's IP for a song
Reminds me of my favorite hockey cheer:
Awwwww...see ya asshole! You goon!
Take for instance LaTeX- I could certainly cross-compile the full distro. I could even show that I'm super l33t and run LyX under X11... But why the hell would I want to waste my time doing that?
You probably don't have to complie anything, just grab the right packages from debian-arm.
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
As far as note-taking, have you tried IQnotes?
Not so for the Zaurus... it seems people are too busy cheerleading that no one has time for any software development.
I don't think that's a fair statement. There are 807 applications currently listed in the Zaurus Software Index. Seems like someone's doing software development.
Man, I was really hoping you'd indulge me with the ursury thing.
You're getting pretty boring. You make obviously wrong assumptions in ever single post, Like this:
Your obtaining of the music means you have obtained music you would have otherewise paid for.
And, as I expected, you once again fail to recognize the difference between potential and actual profits.
What do they have to do with the illegality of stealing music?
Blah, blah, blah. that's not what were agruing.
Well, looks like you've accepted the reality the copyright infringement is illegal, but not theft.
Now that we're done with that, maybe you can explain why you seem to have no issues about libel at all...
Apparently, you are incapable of the simple concept of stealing profits. Next.
Wow. This is getting pretty amusing. You just don't get it still.
You have no grasp of the law do you?
Stealing profits would be either embezzlement or theft.
But guess what? You're talking about potential profits. They're not real. They're all in your head. Unfortuately for you, something has to actually exist first for you to steal it.
I was really serious. You should work on your reading comprehension skills. Let's see if you can comprehend the concept of potential vs. actual profits. My hopes aren't very high.
You and I both know it is theft.
Nope. You think it's theft, but I know better. Copyright infringement is much closer to patent infringement or plagiarism.
It's also pretty funny how much space you waste calling be a theif. Since I pointed out the criminal actions of the RIAA's members, I must be a criminal myself right?
At this point I'm just wondering how far out into never never land your half-assed logic will get you. I wonder if you'll start saying copyright infringement is murder because profits are being "killed". Or maybe it's assault on profits? Rape maybe? Abortion of profits?
Oh shit! I got it.....it's terrorism!
I tell you what, you get bonus "what planet is this guy from points" if you'll explain to me why copyright infringement is ursury.
You can quote dictionary.com all day, but it will never change the fact that you are wrong and refuse to admit it. Next
And I suppose dictionary.com is wrong too?
Just because you like to conceptualize something as theft, doesn't make it theft.
It is illegal to obtain a product without paying for it without consent of the creator. This is insanely simple; do try to keep up, okay?
Obviously, dumbass. What it is not, is theft. You loose. It's copyright infringement, not theft. Are you really so incapable of understanding this?
Let me reiterate one more time:
Downloading MP3s is copyright infringement, not theft.
I'm right, you're wrong. illegal!=stealing
What's so damned hard about this concept?
Let me break it down very simply:
Murder is illegal.
Theft is illegal.
Copyright infringement is illegal.
Murder, theft and copyright infringment are all different crimes.
Get it now?
You can try and say murder is theft because it's "taking" someone's life, but you'll just be wrong. Just because you can make an analogy between two things, does not mean they're equivalent. Try to work on your reading comprehension skills a little. I never said that copyright infringement wasn't illegal, only that it wasn't theft.
Information wants to beat you with a cluestick.
Gates has always said that (paraphrased) Microsoft makes mistakes all the time, and that just one particularly bad misstep could doom Microsoft's prospects. The key to survival is to outlive the mistakes, to make fewer mistakes than the competition, and to keep tons of money in the bank instead paying them out in dividends, but these things can't always be done. This is why his company has tried to lowbal investor expectations every quarter, and exceed those expectations every quarter.
No, acutally it's tax evasion. Lots of companies do this. They hold onto money instead of paying it out so their stockholders don't have to pay taxes on the dividends. Then the stockholders still get the money via an increase in the stock price. That why they finally have to pay a dividend. So they pay tax on all that cash they made. (Yes i know you could argue that it's double taxed, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they're trying to evade one of those taxes)
Then copying is stealing, because you're intentionally depriving them of money. Any other brain-busters?
Nope, that doesn't work.
Give me five dollars.
By your logic, your refusal to give me money is stealing.
You see, you can't just decide to just ignore the rest of the definiton and use the one word from it that you can twist to make it say what you want. You should note the prescence of the words taking and removal. These are part of the definition. You can't just ignore them at will, unless you're planning to ignore the meaning of the word theft, and therefore be wrong. If someone downloads an MP3 off the internet, nothing the record company owns disappears.
Here's that defintion again:
The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Why don't they just call it Linux?
SARCASM:After all, no one could ever confuse a web browser with an OS.
Since Mozilla is cross platform this will be great. This way when I say "I just installed Linux" no one will know what I just installed OR what OS I'm using. All they'll know for sure is that I have a computer
See, no confusion at all.
Seriously, the Mozilla team should find a new name. It's now like their new firebird name is well established already. I don't think it's even been a month since they picked this name.
They have no good excuse to keep this name, and doing so will make them look very bad. Their full of shit if they think keeping the firebird name won't cause confusion. I can prove them wrong with one sentence:
I just installed firebird.
See it just created confusion, now drop the name already, geez.
The only thing that is more pathetic than a Mac gamer [redvsblue.com] is someone who claims to be a Linux gamer. Let's face it, if you want to play games then you need to run Windows.
:P
Not if you want to play Linux games
Seriously, he said "linux gamer" for a reason. If he ran windows he wouldn't be a linux gamer anymore, now would he?
BTW, it a lot easier to run windows games under linux, than linux games under windows. That, and some gamers actually use their system for other things too.
Windows is the absolute best OS out there for gaming at this point unless you want to play on a console.
No, it's the most popular OS for gaming. Big difference. Best is a subjective choice which depends on the actual games you want to play (among other things).
The problem here is that there are no penalties for abuse of the patent system. Claiming to have invented something you obviously did not should be treated as fraud.
Basically, the current U.S. patent system has descended into a registry system. Filing and having a patent accepted is having put on file "I invented X on date Y" It's just not possible for them to check applications thuroughly enough. They would have to employ someone "skilled" in every art.
If you combine this with the ability to loose by default in the US legal system, you get some very nasty effects. Take this example:
Step one:
I try to patent the mouse. I have odds that this patent will slip through and be accepted. If it does not I just try some other technology.
Step two:
I use my new patent to file lawsuits against small companies for small amounts of money. It would cost them more to get my patent thrown out that to settle.
Currently, the practice above isn't even illegal. It's a blatant abuse of the system but there is no provision to punish anyone for abusing it. People who pull the kind of shit should go to laid. Their patent application was a lie.
If I pretended to own a piece of property I had no real rights to, and charged people money to park there, I would be guilty of fraud. The same should be true for IP.
I know that Linux and GNU software carries some terms of their own, and I can't imagine any Open Source developer that would be that thrilled if Microsoft pulled a quid-pro-pro and copied our stuff into their stuff. Isn't there any alternative that was actually designed to run on Linux?
Actually, they'd be thrilled (assuming the stuff is GLP'ed). That would mean the Microsoft would have to release the source code to whatever application they used it in.
Also, no one is talking about pirating MS software here. They're talking about using legally purchased copies of it on a non-MS operating system.
I mean, why *DO* we still have pagefiles?
Because if we didn't our computers would crash when we ran out of RAM. Seriouly, a lot of programs don't cope well with being told: there's no more RAM left on the system, you can't create that object.
Swap is a good thing. Right now my PC has 512MB of RAM this is more than I need for just about anything I do. Right now my RAM is 31% free and my 2GB swap space is 78% free. Why the hell should so much be in the swap space when I have free RAM? Because that information is old and rarely accessed. Say I write a program that just creates a 100MB data object and then sits there for days waiting for something to happen. Eventually all that data will end up being stored in swap space. By keeping it in swap I have lots of RAM free for any programs that need memory space which they'll actually use all the time.
The problem isn't as simple as: "swap space is slow so it must be bad." Swap being slow costs you speed when you're using it, but it also gives you speed, by letting you use your RAM for things like disk caching. You have to look at the cost vs the benfit of having swap, not just the cost.
The MPAA is planning on using a technique that will protect its rights over the works its member studios have produced. This technique doesn't involve subpoenas to ISPs to get the identities of p2p users. This technique doesn't involve scare tactics targeted at network admins. This technique does not involve arrests, fine, or prison sentences. This technique does not involve some cockeyed "protection scheme" that renders the product absolutely useless in certain circumstances.
What the fuck do you guys want?
I want them to pay for it with their own fucking money. Uncle Sam isn't installing a security system in my place for free. Why should these goons get this for free, so that they have more money to do all those things we don't like?