Even if the suers loose this case, what do you want to bet that Microsoft will appeal? They could pay the $40 per person there, but if they don't appeal it will set a precedent...
The option of building your own computer from the ground up existed before prebuilt computers were really an option, and never went away. There has always been a way for customers who truly wanted to avoid MS to avoid it. And for those who didn't want to build their own computer, they could hire someone who would.
Companies though have not always had that option. Large companies who wanted to sell Windows at all were often forced to pay per processor rather than per installation for Windows, meaning they paid whether that particular computer had windows or not. There is reason for compensation for that, not for the users, most of whom have used windows and who could have avoided it if they really wanted to.
Where did they come up with the $40 number anyway?
I don't think this is a good idea. The point should be to change certain behavior in the future, and perhaps to punish them for what they did in the past. It is not to give out mass refunds to computer users, who really did have a choice in the end.
Contractual obligations forced some companys to use microsofts software or pay for it even if they didn't use it. Netscape was not asked if it wanted to be driven out of business by having some one else give away versions of its core software just to drive them out of business. If anyone should be compensated monitarily by microsoft it should be them.
There's a problem with your first point: Motorists and biciclists like different types of roads.
I take my bicicle most of the time, and I become ever more acutely aware of this, especially when I start noting the different routes I and my wife(in her car since she has had knee surgery) take to the exact same place.
Motorists like streets with high speed limits and mulitple lanes. And they don't care much one way or another about how wide the shoulders are or how good the drainage is on the road.
On my bike, I am intensely interested in having very wide shoulders and drainage matters since I hate riding through standing rain water. I also prefer not having multiple lanes since I often have to ride straight in right turn only lanes and turning left with multiple lanes is such a pain I normally just cross the street twice with the light on those roads.
And while I won't hesitate to ride even on high speed roads, I get a lot more nervous when cars are whipping past me at 45-50 mph than I do when they slip by at 30-35.
I think it would help if cities started desining roads more with bicyclists and pedestrians in mind. Give us wider shoulders, lower speeds(just a little!), better drainage, and maybe hike the tax on gas and more people would walk/ride
Better public transportation would help too. I don't mind riding to/from work and school, but when I'm shopping the car helps to carry the purchases, even relatively small items and over 5 miles I don't want to take my bike. But I could deal with public transportation...
It asks if we want to trust software that thousands of unknown authors have contributed to, but I know a lot more about RMS and Linus than I do about, oh say, the latest goons that programmed Windows XP...Most open source authors not only accept but insist on credit for their work and normally are not hard to track down. And if it really bothers you to trust them, you have the code to check it out yourself.
With closed source software its being made by legions of people you don't know and then they say, "Trust us, its bug free, it has no known issues." and then they don't let you examine the code to find out for yourself.
You have a couple of interesting points. But while some sensitive individuals such as yourself can tell the reduction in frequency range in MP3s, I and the vast majority of consumers that occassionally listen to classical will not notice.
More importantly though, I see no reason that you could not put the higher quality recording in a perfectly rippable Audio DVD since they have exactly the same capacity.
In short, while this has advantages for audiophiles and could possibly be useful for very long compositions or large compiliations, all of those advantages could be achieved using DVDs...
I have to say I'm not impressed. While the storage capacity is clearly better than a CD, it is not substantially better than a DVD, and I haven't seen a large demand for more space on Audio CDs to begin with. Many of the CDs I buy do not fill up the whole space they have as they stand. And as to the possibility of higher quality recordings, some audiophiles will care, and they will be willing to pay a premium, but for most of us, a standard Mp3 has acceptable quality and a raw CD is just great.
Then there is the fact that I do not want to deal with DRM at all. When I purchase music, I expect to be able to(within reason) listen to it where and when I want. That means I should be able to rip it to more than one computer(I actively and frequently use 3 distinct systems, I am the sole user of 2 of them...), transfer it onto my portable player, and burn it in a mix I select onto CDs to take in my car player.
I would like to point out that before I had the technology to do all of these things, I hardly ever purchased CDs at all. It was the ability to do these things, to listen to the songs I wanted when and where I wanted that finally inspired me to start buying and wanting lots of CDs. And if the recording industry makes it difficult for me to do these things on a certain type of media, I will have no interest in that media at all just as I did not have any interest in CDs before I could do these things...
I know you are right in saying that many on capitol hill are itching for a legislative answer to this, but there is no legislative answer.
First and foremost, most of the legislation they want would violate the first amendment and hideously extend copyright beyond anything it was ever intended to be. Second, more legislation is no good if they cannot or do not enforce it, and most of this type of legislation is unenforceable.
I think copyright laws should be relaxed, not tightened, but they should be there. And they should be enforced.
My susggestion to their dilemma is partially to find, not really a new business model, but more complimentary business models and distribution channels. Most people are willing to pay if the price is affordable.
Second, strengthen ENFORCEMENT and funding for enforcement against those who commercially and on a large scale infringe on copyright. Let the little ones go. The little ones aren't worth the trouble to hunt them.
While a periodic reminder to update embedded in certain types of software where interoperability was key would not be a bad touch at all, being forced to update it absolutely terrible. The reason I use opern source at home is because it gives you freedom(libre). This would take some of it away.
I would like to start by saying I fully agree with you. The fact that many consumer(myself included) simply will abide by the law, but not purchase software/music/data we do not like and find alternatives will likely cause the market to move away from such silly protection. As most readers remember,during the late 80s, early 90s enormous amounts of software had heavy handed copy protection on them, but the combination of consumer complaints from those who purchased it legitimately and the fact that those without such scruples always found a way around the copy protection eventually made it much less common.
On the other hand, I do believe Fair Use movements could use Dr. King's methods. Granted, I would not advocate it! In this case, a letter writting campaing coupled with court challenges to the constitutionality of the laws being passed with regards to the issue are probably just as effective without anyone committing crimes. But those tactics would work if they were invoked. One person going to prison for a violation will not attract much attention, but if a large number of librarians and students in a particular area united in a common time(a common physical place would be nice to), shouted to the world they were violating those laws because those laws where wrong, and then flagrantly violated them and then openly awaited response. That would draw a fair amount of attention, and that would start things changing. Especially if other groups of librarians, students, and common people followed suit openly and then accepted any punishment that may come stoicly, that would draw action.
And do not forget the amount of attention the Dmitry Skylarov case brought. Even a single case, if it manages to draw publicity, can help.
If you intend to take this as a civil rights matter, then you have my deepest respect. But to make it a civil rights matter in the tradition of Martin Luther King and his followers, you must do it as they would have.
To wear the mantle of civil disobedience of the cause of civil rights, you must bear the crown of thorns that goes with it. You must make your violation flagrant, obvious, and nonviolent. When the police(or civil litigation lawyers) do come to deal with it, you must at most passively resist them, never denying that you committed a crime and never opposing them with either deceit or violence. When they drag you to court, you must forgo any pretence of innocence and instead focus on the fact that the laws you broke should not be laws. When the judge passes the sentance, you must accept it stoicly, and suffer whatever punishment he hands down passively, putting your hope in the populace to support you, the legislature to change the laws you broke, and if you are truly lucky the executives to pardon you.
And when you finish suffering whatever reprecussions they hand down, you must be ready to do it all over again, still stoicly, still nonviolently, and still suffering whatever punishment they hand down, taking your consolation only in the fact that your cause is just and your actions righteous.
That would be noble, that would be admirable, and that would be in the tradition of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King.
On the other hand, to just violate the laws for your own selfish reasons, concealing your actions if not from the world at large, at least from thoe who would punish you, and being ready and willing to do whatever legal manuevering is necessary to minimize the punishment if you are caught is not civil disobediance in the name of a cause, it is just a lack of respect for the authority of the government, and that is something that both Martin Luther King and the Christ he followed would disdain.
That is a good point. Many of my friends did that beofe they learned how to use computers in detail when were younger(I learned to use computers when I was very, very young, thanks to my parents, but most of my friends didn't, and most of them didn't share my obsession with technology even when they finally did begin to learn.
Of course, the RIAA can validly claim that it has escalated by at least an order of magnitude with the internet compared to analog copying of tapes by hand....
I largely believe you are right. But I think you are exagerating slightly when you say that they are dealing with a generation that has never paid for the products of the RIAA and MPAA.
I largely avoid piracy and have paid for most of my music and most of my movies, and (most) of the others were acquired through means where they were compensated by advertising(tv, radio, etc).
Most consumers have no trouble paying for entertainment they find worthy of being paid for. But once they have paid for it, they do want to be able to use it when and where they want, whether that be on a computer, ripped to a computer as an MP3, or remixed with other content on a Cd/other media they generate.
The SSCA is a terrible idea which should be abolished.
I agree that something should be done to protect the children who are receiving cease and desist letters regarding Harry Potter and that they should not be ignored. However, this is a different category.
They were actually violating copyright and trademark laws(I do believe that copyright and trademark laws should both be relaxed and made less restrictive, but that is a different topic). From what I understand, this individual, and the others mentioned in the article linked to were being sued not for copyright violation but for libel when they were expressing their personal, though negative, opinions of other individuals.
It is ridiculous and in direct opposition to the principles this country was founded on to permit the court systems to be used to chill public commentary on other individuals. The people where not spreading knowingly false information, they were spreading their personal opinions, which they are fully entitled to possess and to express in this country.
I have a question though. I have read the article linked to but have not thoroughly researched this case. Has anyone thoroughly looked into it? Has anyone seminonbiased looked into the merits of this and then checked to see what can be done about it?
Has anyone actually thought about organizing boycotts of these companies that use these tactics and informing them? Has anyone organized a petition for a national Anti-SLAPP law? If anyone has details on this, feel free to e-mail me at wisemat@okstate.edu
This is insane. As a consumer, I would be strongly opposed to purchasing any hardware which enforces such copy protection.
For the record, I do not engage in or support piracy, but I do insist on being able to back up my data, to move it to different media, and to be able to use it in less than mainstream OS's(Linux is my primary OS at the moment, and I have experimented with some of the other less conventional ones as well.)
Perhaps if there are a large number of others that agree this should be made known to hardware manufacturers.
Unfortunately, as far as the incentive, I believe that could be generated by the movie industry fairly easily. Note that many builders of portable digital music players were willing to gauruntee support for copy protection if a standard were ever created.
It does not seem like this set up would violate the EULA at all. The software is only being used on one machine total, and while the output of that machine is sent off to other machines, that does not mean those other machines are using that software concurrently or that
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the suers loose this case, what do you want to bet that Microsoft will appeal? They could pay the $40 per person there, but if they don't appeal it will set a precedent...
The option of building your own computer from the ground up existed before prebuilt computers were really an option, and never went away. There has always been a way for customers who truly wanted to avoid MS to avoid it. And for those who didn't want to build their own computer, they could hire someone who would.
Companies though have not always had that option. Large companies who wanted to sell Windows at all were often forced to pay per processor rather than per installation for Windows, meaning they paid whether that particular computer had windows or not. There is reason for compensation for that, not for the users, most of whom have used windows and who could have avoided it if they really wanted to.
Where did they come up with the $40 number anyway?
I don't think this is a good idea. The point should be to change certain behavior in the future, and perhaps to punish them for what they did in the past. It is not to give out mass refunds to computer users, who really did have a choice in the end.
Contractual obligations forced some companys to use microsofts software or pay for it even if they didn't use it. Netscape was not asked if it wanted to be driven out of business by having some one else give away versions of its core software just to drive them out of business. If anyone should be compensated monitarily by microsoft it should be them.
There's a problem with your first point: Motorists and biciclists like different types of roads.
I take my bicicle most of the time, and I become ever more acutely aware of this, especially when I start noting the different routes I and my wife(in her car since she has had knee surgery) take to the exact same place.
Motorists like streets with high speed limits and mulitple lanes. And they don't care much one way or another about how wide the shoulders are or how good the drainage is on the road.
On my bike, I am intensely interested in having very wide shoulders and drainage matters since I hate riding through standing rain water. I also prefer not having multiple lanes since I often have to ride straight in right turn only lanes and turning left with multiple lanes is such a pain I normally just cross the street twice with the light on those roads.
And while I won't hesitate to ride even on high speed roads, I get a lot more nervous when cars are whipping past me at 45-50 mph than I do when they slip by at 30-35.
I think it would help if cities started desining roads more with bicyclists and pedestrians in mind. Give us wider shoulders, lower speeds(just a little!), better drainage, and maybe hike the tax on gas and more people would walk/ride
Better public transportation would help too. I don't mind riding to/from work and school, but when I'm shopping the car helps to carry the purchases, even relatively small items and over 5 miles I don't want to take my bike. But I could deal with public transportation...
It asks if we want to trust software that thousands of unknown authors have contributed to, but I know a lot more about RMS and Linus than I do about, oh say, the latest goons that programmed Windows XP...Most open source authors not only accept but insist on credit for their work and normally are not hard to track down. And if it really bothers you to trust them, you have the code to check it out yourself. With closed source software its being made by legions of people you don't know and then they say, "Trust us, its bug free, it has no known issues." and then they don't let you examine the code to find out for yourself.
You have a couple of interesting points. But while some sensitive individuals such as yourself can tell the reduction in frequency range in MP3s, I and the vast majority of consumers that occassionally listen to classical will not notice.
More importantly though, I see no reason that you could not put the higher quality recording in a perfectly rippable Audio DVD since they have exactly the same capacity.
In short, while this has advantages for audiophiles and could possibly be useful for very long compositions or large compiliations, all of those advantages could be achieved using DVDs...
I have to say I'm not impressed. While the storage capacity is clearly better than a CD, it is not substantially better than a DVD, and I haven't seen a large demand for more space on Audio CDs to begin with. Many of the CDs I buy do not fill up the whole space they have as they stand. And as to the possibility of higher quality recordings, some audiophiles will care, and they will be willing to pay a premium, but for most of us, a standard Mp3 has acceptable quality and a raw CD is just great.
Then there is the fact that I do not want to deal with DRM at all. When I purchase music, I expect to be able to(within reason) listen to it where and when I want. That means I should be able to rip it to more than one computer(I actively and frequently use 3 distinct systems, I am the sole user of 2 of them...), transfer it onto my portable player, and burn it in a mix I select onto CDs to take in my car player.
I would like to point out that before I had the technology to do all of these things, I hardly ever purchased CDs at all. It was the ability to do these things, to listen to the songs I wanted when and where I wanted that finally inspired me to start buying and wanting lots of CDs. And if the recording industry makes it difficult for me to do these things on a certain type of media, I will have no interest in that media at all just as I did not have any interest in CDs before I could do these things...
Apparantly, Quicken runs well under wine, but does anyone know if they are thinking about making a *nix native version of Quicken anytime soon?
I know you are right in saying that many on capitol hill are itching for a legislative answer to this, but there is no legislative answer.
First and foremost, most of the legislation they want would violate the first amendment and hideously extend copyright beyond anything it was ever intended to be. Second, more legislation is no good if they cannot or do not enforce it, and most of this type of legislation is unenforceable.
I think copyright laws should be relaxed, not tightened, but they should be there. And they should be enforced.
My susggestion to their dilemma is partially to find, not really a new business model, but more complimentary business models and distribution channels. Most people are willing to pay if the price is affordable.
Second, strengthen ENFORCEMENT and funding for enforcement against those who commercially and on a large scale infringe on copyright. Let the little ones go. The little ones aren't worth the trouble to hunt them.
While a periodic reminder to update embedded in certain types of software where interoperability was key would not be a bad touch at all, being forced to update it absolutely terrible. The reason I use opern source at home is because it gives you freedom(libre). This would take some of it away.
I would like to start by saying I fully agree with you. The fact that many consumer(myself included) simply will abide by the law, but not purchase software/music/data we do not like and find alternatives will likely cause the market to move away from such silly protection. As most readers remember,during the late 80s, early 90s enormous amounts of software had heavy handed copy protection on them, but the combination of consumer complaints from those who purchased it legitimately and the fact that those without such scruples always found a way around the copy protection eventually made it much less common.
On the other hand, I do believe Fair Use movements could use Dr. King's methods. Granted, I would not advocate it! In this case, a letter writting campaing coupled with court challenges to the constitutionality of the laws being passed with regards to the issue are probably just as effective without anyone committing crimes. But those tactics would work if they were invoked. One person going to prison for a violation will not attract much attention, but if a large number of librarians and students in a particular area united in a common time(a common physical place would be nice to), shouted to the world they were violating those laws because those laws where wrong, and then flagrantly violated them and then openly awaited response. That would draw a fair amount of attention, and that would start things changing. Especially if other groups of librarians, students, and common people followed suit openly and then accepted any punishment that may come stoicly, that would draw action.
And do not forget the amount of attention the Dmitry Skylarov case brought. Even a single case, if it manages to draw publicity, can help.
If you intend to take this as a civil rights matter, then you have my deepest respect. But to make it a civil rights matter in the tradition of Martin Luther King and his followers, you must do it as they would have.
To wear the mantle of civil disobedience of the cause of civil rights, you must bear the crown of thorns that goes with it. You must make your violation flagrant, obvious, and nonviolent. When the police(or civil litigation lawyers) do come to deal with it, you must at most passively resist them, never denying that you committed a crime and never opposing them with either deceit or violence. When they drag you to court, you must forgo any pretence of innocence and instead focus on the fact that the laws you broke should not be laws. When the judge passes the sentance, you must accept it stoicly, and suffer whatever punishment he hands down passively, putting your hope in the populace to support you, the legislature to change the laws you broke, and if you are truly lucky the executives to pardon you.
And when you finish suffering whatever reprecussions they hand down, you must be ready to do it all over again, still stoicly, still nonviolently, and still suffering whatever punishment they hand down, taking your consolation only in the fact that your cause is just and your actions righteous.
That would be noble, that would be admirable, and that would be in the tradition of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King.
On the other hand, to just violate the laws for your own selfish reasons, concealing your actions if not from the world at large, at least from thoe who would punish you, and being ready and willing to do whatever legal manuevering is necessary to minimize the punishment if you are caught is not civil disobediance in the name of a cause, it is just a lack of respect for the authority of the government, and that is something that both Martin Luther King and the Christ he followed would disdain.
That is a good point. Many of my friends did that beofe they learned how to use computers in detail when were younger(I learned to use computers when I was very, very young, thanks to my parents, but most of my friends didn't, and most of them didn't share my obsession with technology even when they finally did begin to learn.
Of course, the RIAA can validly claim that it has escalated by at least an order of magnitude with the internet compared to analog copying of tapes by hand....
I largely believe you are right. But I think you are exagerating slightly when you say that they are dealing with a generation that has never paid for the products of the RIAA and MPAA. I largely avoid piracy and have paid for most of my music and most of my movies, and (most) of the others were acquired through means where they were compensated by advertising(tv, radio, etc). Most consumers have no trouble paying for entertainment they find worthy of being paid for. But once they have paid for it, they do want to be able to use it when and where they want, whether that be on a computer, ripped to a computer as an MP3, or remixed with other content on a Cd/other media they generate. The SSCA is a terrible idea which should be abolished.
I agree that something should be done to protect the children who are receiving cease and desist letters regarding Harry Potter and that they should not be ignored. However, this is a different category. They were actually violating copyright and trademark laws(I do believe that copyright and trademark laws should both be relaxed and made less restrictive, but that is a different topic). From what I understand, this individual, and the others mentioned in the article linked to were being sued not for copyright violation but for libel when they were expressing their personal, though negative, opinions of other individuals. It is ridiculous and in direct opposition to the principles this country was founded on to permit the court systems to be used to chill public commentary on other individuals. The people where not spreading knowingly false information, they were spreading their personal opinions, which they are fully entitled to possess and to express in this country. I have a question though. I have read the article linked to but have not thoroughly researched this case. Has anyone thoroughly looked into it? Has anyone seminonbiased looked into the merits of this and then checked to see what can be done about it? Has anyone actually thought about organizing boycotts of these companies that use these tactics and informing them? Has anyone organized a petition for a national Anti-SLAPP law? If anyone has details on this, feel free to e-mail me at wisemat@okstate.edu
This is insane. As a consumer, I would be strongly opposed to purchasing any hardware which enforces such copy protection. For the record, I do not engage in or support piracy, but I do insist on being able to back up my data, to move it to different media, and to be able to use it in less than mainstream OS's(Linux is my primary OS at the moment, and I have experimented with some of the other less conventional ones as well.) Perhaps if there are a large number of others that agree this should be made known to hardware manufacturers. Unfortunately, as far as the incentive, I believe that could be generated by the movie industry fairly easily. Note that many builders of portable digital music players were willing to gauruntee support for copy protection if a standard were ever created.
It does not seem like this set up would violate the EULA at all. The software is only being used on one machine total, and while the output of that machine is sent off to other machines, that does not mean those other machines are using that software concurrently or that