As long as the law as it is currently written is in place, you're going to have to put up with stupid restrictions and put up with doing work to get around them. Bashing a company for releasing a product that implements stupid restrictions in order to comply with the law as written is not a productive activity.
You are under the incorrect assumption that the type of sharing you want to enable has a substantial non-infringing purpose. It doesn't. Every case you come up with as a counter example will be a corner case and will fail to demonstrate SUBSTANTIAL non-infringing use.
This isn't a VHS or cassette tape debate where one can argue fair use as the primary purpose of the technology. This involves the whole and complete transfer of a copyrighted work from one person to another as its primary purpose. The only way fair use can be attained in this scenario is through "sampling", which is WHY you see play and time restrictions of copied files.
If that restriciton wasn't there, Microsoft would LOSE any copyright infringement court case brought before them. No amount of lawyering or wishing will change that. If you want that to change, you need to get Congress to rewrite copyright law. (and good luck with that)
This is daft. Is the DRM imposed by the client or th
There is no DRM added to the transfered files (the original file is not modified). It is a client side "limitation", keeping track of the 3 play/3 day limitation in an internal index.
Honstely, are people around here too stupid to realize what would happen if they didn't do this? Don't the RIAA lawsuits against Napster and other p2p software give you a tiny HINT? You think those lawsuits were nasty? Just wait until the RIAA and its cronies get its hands on a company with REAL money...
Storage space isn't the issue. Rental movies can't be stored for any real duration -- they're deleted after you watch them. TV shows can be redownloaded as many times as you like after purchasing them. If you run out of space, delete the show; if you want to watch it in the future, download it again for free.
It could me I misread something, though honestly 100k units isn't a huge amount when you think about it. It is a large number relative to the number of sales they've already had in Japan, but they still sell 2-3 times that amount every month in the US alone.
I suspect Blue Dragon isn't the only reason to purchase a 360 in Japan, though it is probably the game that will push many people over the edge to get one.
Humphrey v Staszak ruled that an officer had probable cause (thus maintaining qualified immunity) to arrest a citizen for disorderly conduct, where the disorderly conduct was repeatedly demanding officers to identify themselves and produce their badge numbers.
It does not give bystanders the right to damand badge numbers, nor does it permit someone to interferre if the officer fails to comply. In fact, it allows them to arrest you without fear of reprisal.
Edwards v. South Carolina also has nothing to do with a right to observe arrests. It decided that the people were arrested due to the "message" their assembly was expressing, and that there was no evidence to sustain the "breach of peace" convictions they received.
The guy is of Iranian descent, and in this case he was the only one in the entire library asked to show id. I'd be surprised if this was the first time the guy had been harrased...
It's a misdemeanor. Right up there with jaywalking.
The police are permitted to use force, however they aren't permitted to use an arbitrary amount of force. They can't shoot the guy. They can't beat him to a bloody pulp. The police required to use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish their goal (which is to eliminate the trespass) -- in this case, they should have just dragged the guy out. Shooting a guy sitting on the ground with a taser 5 times (which prevents the subject from moving) accomplishes nothing.
My "favorite" part (and I say that sarcastically) of the video you linked to is after the lady was tasered, the officer orders her to put her hands behind her back, she replies "I can't" (because she'd just been tazed for NINE seconds), then he tasers her again.
The impact a taser has on a subject depends on a number of factors, including the duration of the jolt. Most subjects exposed for 1 or 2 seconds recover almost immediately. Subjects exposed to 3 seconds or greater are usually imobilized for several minutes. The guy in the video was hit for 5-10 seconds multiple times.
Here in the real world, you are only resisting arrest if the officer attempts to arrest you. The guy dropped to the ground the instant he was touched by an officer (which was where the video starts). Not once in the video do you hear the officers announce they were going to arrest him. They didn't even start thinking about arresting the guy until they tasered him 4 times. They tasered him a 5th time (in the ass) after they slapped the cuffs on for good measure.
Resisting arrest requires some active participation designed to prevent an arrest from occuring, either through physical action or threat of physical action. Physical inaction is not resisting arrest, nor is mouthing off to an officer resisting arrest.
Being tasered does not alter mental status. It causes/extreme/ pain (as evidenced by the cries of the guy getting tasered over and over [and over and over and over]), disorientation, muscle spasms, and a severe loss of motor control. In most cases (youtube videos of idiots tasing themselves not-withstanding), tasing someone for longer than 3 seconds imobilizes the subject for several minutes -- sometimes as along as 15 minutes. Multiple tases in the video exceeded 10 seconds.
Fact of the matter is, after they tasered the guy the first time HE PROBABLY COULDN'T MOVE. Even if in your fantasy world where someone's failure to stand up qualifies as resisting arrest (subjecting them to a violent act intended to prevent the subject from standing up), the 4 subsequent instances of tasing were unnecessary and abusive.
Yelling is not the same as fighting. Sitting on the floor is not resisting. Having every muscle in your body contract while being tasered is a result of being tasered, not a violent nature.
Never, ever, absolutely NEVER interfere with police regardless of what they are doing. It won't help, and will probably make the situation worse -- remember, the police are trained to take people down and they're armed. At a minimum, interference will result in an obstruction charge. Even if the offers are acting illegally, the obstruction charge will stick and you will likely be convicted.
The only thing you can do in that sort of situation is act as a witness. Get the officer's names and badge numbers. Get other witness's names and phone numbers. If the encounter is violent, call 911 and tell them that the police are beating someone to a bloody pulp.
Bringing a system to a crawl means you can count the seconds tick away as you watch a window being drawn on screen, line by line, while the system constantly pages. It means you can get soda while you wait for notepad to start. It means that the mouse updates less than 4 times a second, and there is a noticable span of time between clicking a mouse button and seeing something happen on-screen. It means that the computer can't keep up with your typing.
Beta2 performance was bad, but not THAT bad. RC2 perf doesn't seem much different than XP (better in some areas, worse in others).
My computer setup is slower than his in every way, yet mine doesn't run at a crawl. Ergo, the GP is making crap up. Now, who you choose to believe is up to you, though it is very easy to determine which of us is a liar by trying the experiment yourself. Hence my astonishment and amusement.
The perf of the RC2 build of Vista is fine on my 2.8ghz P4 with 1gb of ram. FUD, pure and simple. I'll never understand why people such as yourself feel it necessary to tell such blatent lies (that are so easily disproved), nor will I understand why people feel it necessary to mod such bullshit up.
They never said that. They said they had documented everything, and if that still isn't sufficient you can license our code. The EU said that code wasn't sufficient documentation.
Quite frankly, all this does is prove that the only viable "drm model" from a consumer perspective is a rental/subscription based one. Purchasing content that only exists in the digital realm for "ownership" is going to be a backwards proposition for quite some time, perhaps indefinately.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the law as it is currently written is in place, you're going to have to put up with stupid restrictions and put up with doing work to get around them. Bashing a company for releasing a product that implements stupid restrictions in order to comply with the law as written is not a productive activity.
You are under the incorrect assumption that the type of sharing you want to enable has a substantial non-infringing purpose. It doesn't. Every case you come up with as a counter example will be a corner case and will fail to demonstrate SUBSTANTIAL non-infringing use.
This isn't a VHS or cassette tape debate where one can argue fair use as the primary purpose of the technology. This involves the whole and complete transfer of a copyrighted work from one person to another as its primary purpose. The only way fair use can be attained in this scenario is through "sampling", which is WHY you see play and time restrictions of copied files.
If that restriciton wasn't there, Microsoft would LOSE any copyright infringement court case brought before them. No amount of lawyering or wishing will change that. If you want that to change, you need to get Congress to rewrite copyright law. (and good luck with that)
This is daft. Is the DRM imposed by the client or th
There is no DRM added to the transfered files (the original file is not modified). It is a client side "limitation", keeping track of the 3 play/3 day limitation in an internal index.
Honstely, are people around here too stupid to realize what would happen if they didn't do this? Don't the RIAA lawsuits against Napster and other p2p software give you a tiny HINT? You think those lawsuits were nasty? Just wait until the RIAA and its cronies get its hands on a company with REAL money...
Storage space isn't the issue. Rental movies can't be stored for any real duration -- they're deleted after you watch them. TV shows can be redownloaded as many times as you like after purchasing them. If you run out of space, delete the show; if you want to watch it in the future, download it again for free.
It could me I misread something, though honestly 100k units isn't a huge amount when you think about it. It is a large number relative to the number of sales they've already had in Japan, but they still sell 2-3 times that amount every month in the US alone.
I suspect Blue Dragon isn't the only reason to purchase a 360 in Japan, though it is probably the game that will push many people over the edge to get one.
The are a fixed number of bundles. Apparently they're all reserved/preordered, so there isn't anything to "wait" for.
Humphrey v Staszak ruled that an officer had probable cause (thus maintaining qualified immunity) to arrest a citizen for disorderly conduct, where the disorderly conduct was repeatedly demanding officers to identify themselves and produce their badge numbers.
It does not give bystanders the right to damand badge numbers, nor does it permit someone to interferre if the officer fails to comply. In fact, it allows them to arrest you without fear of reprisal.
Edwards v. South Carolina also has nothing to do with a right to observe arrests. It decided that the people were arrested due to the "message" their assembly was expressing, and that there was no evidence to sustain the "breach of peace" convictions they received.
THEY WERE TASING HIM. The flaiming of arms was the RESULT OF BEING TASED. You can hear the damn taser clicking/sparking. How stupid are you?
Also, "this is your patriot act!" --> wtf???
The guy is of Iranian descent, and in this case he was the only one in the entire library asked to show id. I'd be surprised if this was the first time the guy had been harrased...
It's a misdemeanor. Right up there with jaywalking.
The police are permitted to use force, however they aren't permitted to use an arbitrary amount of force. They can't shoot the guy. They can't beat him to a bloody pulp. The police required to use the least amount of force necessary to accomplish their goal (which is to eliminate the trespass) -- in this case, they should have just dragged the guy out. Shooting a guy sitting on the ground with a taser 5 times (which prevents the subject from moving) accomplishes nothing.
My "favorite" part (and I say that sarcastically) of the video you linked to is after the lady was tasered, the officer orders her to put her hands behind her back, she replies "I can't" (because she'd just been tazed for NINE seconds), then he tasers her again.
I hope karma is a bitch for that guy.
The impact a taser has on a subject depends on a number of factors, including the duration of the jolt. Most subjects exposed for 1 or 2 seconds recover almost immediately. Subjects exposed to 3 seconds or greater are usually imobilized for several minutes. The guy in the video was hit for 5-10 seconds multiple times.
In the US, citizens arrest is pretty toothless. You're more likely to be charged with impresonating an officer than anything else.
Here in the real world, you are only resisting arrest if the officer attempts to arrest you. The guy dropped to the ground the instant he was touched by an officer (which was where the video starts). Not once in the video do you hear the officers announce they were going to arrest him. They didn't even start thinking about arresting the guy until they tasered him 4 times. They tasered him a 5th time (in the ass) after they slapped the cuffs on for good measure.
/extreme/ pain (as evidenced by the cries of the guy getting tasered over and over [and over and over and over]), disorientation, muscle spasms, and a severe loss of motor control. In most cases (youtube videos of idiots tasing themselves not-withstanding), tasing someone for longer than 3 seconds imobilizes the subject for several minutes -- sometimes as along as 15 minutes. Multiple tases in the video exceeded 10 seconds.
Resisting arrest requires some active participation designed to prevent an arrest from occuring, either through physical action or threat of physical action. Physical inaction is not resisting arrest, nor is mouthing off to an officer resisting arrest.
Being tasered does not alter mental status. It causes
Fact of the matter is, after they tasered the guy the first time HE PROBABLY COULDN'T MOVE. Even if in your fantasy world where someone's failure to stand up qualifies as resisting arrest (subjecting them to a violent act intended to prevent the subject from standing up), the 4 subsequent instances of tasing were unnecessary and abusive.
You are a moron.
Yelling is not the same as fighting. Sitting on the floor is not resisting. Having every muscle in your body contract while being tasered is a result of being tasered, not a violent nature.
Idiot.
Never, ever, absolutely NEVER interfere with police regardless of what they are doing. It won't help, and will probably make the situation worse -- remember, the police are trained to take people down and they're armed. At a minimum, interference will result in an obstruction charge. Even if the offers are acting illegally, the obstruction charge will stick and you will likely be convicted.
The only thing you can do in that sort of situation is act as a witness. Get the officer's names and badge numbers. Get other witness's names and phone numbers. If the encounter is violent, call 911 and tell them that the police are beating someone to a bloody pulp.
Bringing a system to a crawl means you can count the seconds tick away as you watch a window being drawn on screen, line by line, while the system constantly pages. It means you can get soda while you wait for notepad to start. It means that the mouse updates less than 4 times a second, and there is a noticable span of time between clicking a mouse button and seeing something happen on-screen. It means that the computer can't keep up with your typing.
Beta2 performance was bad, but not THAT bad. RC2 perf doesn't seem much different than XP (better in some areas, worse in others).
My computer setup is slower than his in every way, yet mine doesn't run at a crawl. Ergo, the GP is making crap up. Now, who you choose to believe is up to you, though it is very easy to determine which of us is a liar by trying the experiment yourself. Hence my astonishment and amusement.
The perf of the RC2 build of Vista is fine on my 2.8ghz P4 with 1gb of ram. FUD, pure and simple. I'll never understand why people such as yourself feel it necessary to tell such blatent lies (that are so easily disproved), nor will I understand why people feel it necessary to mod such bullshit up.
They never said that. They said they had documented everything, and if that still isn't sufficient you can license our code. The EU said that code wasn't sufficient documentation.
Because it is useless for the most common phishing case (links sent via email) and easily circumvented (use javascript to open the link).
It's a troll because the implication is that there are lawsuits when, in fact, there are not.
Spend 10 seconds reading a Zune article on engadget. You'll see people wetting themselves over the thing.
Quite frankly, all this does is prove that the only viable "drm model" from a consumer perspective is a rental/subscription based one. Purchasing content that only exists in the digital realm for "ownership" is going to be a backwards proposition for quite some time, perhaps indefinately.
The Zune is not a PFS device. Slashdot is about 2 months late to the hate fest over this stuff ...