Fortunately, mplayer only does data input/conversion/transfer/display (just like any software actually), and this is specifically exempt from patentabilty. Even the Blinkenlights vo module:-)
MfG shurdeek
Thanks to lobbying by open source groups and demonstrations that took place on the web and the physical world as well, open source and small/middle software development companies in general were able to push some important changes:
The most important element seems to be that software and algorithms per se can't be patented, and a patent needs a "technical contribution". Even more, basically you can't violate a patent by a normal program that processes data, even if the input/output is done by technical means such as a monitor or keyboard.
I find it highly unlikely that an open source developer (or a software development company in general) can violate such a software patent (it's called "computerised invention" actually, there will be no real "software patents").
The legislative process isn't finished yet, it has to pass some more stuff, but I've got a good feeling that we're on the right track.
Very many thanks to everyone who helped, be it a demonstration, donation, lobbying or whatever.
There are 2 major points here: in reality the security of the system is a mix of the software and the people working with it. If the people don't have security in mind, no software will help them.
The more important thing though, the difference between Win and Lin isn't that one of them is more secure per-se. It's just that I find it MUCH easier to secure a Linux machine than to secure a Windows machine. With Windows, one never knows WTF the beast is doing, and one is used not to care.
MfG shurdeek
Well, I only have like 25 DVDs, but several thousand divx/mpeg/mp3/whatever, and with freevo+mplayer+remote I have a consistent interface for all that. I use my amp remote, which has extra buttons. I configured freevo/mplayer so that it automatically chooses language and subittles to how I like it so that I don't have to press ANY buttons.
I used powerdvd once, and found it too difficult to use, and totally user unfriendly. I also used a hardware dvd player once, and have to agree that those 1000s buttons on the remote are complicated as well.
Everything you said is true, until you realize there is a very natural user interface, the only one you should ever need for a media player: an infrared remote control. No windows, no mouse, no keyboard (only when debugging). If I want to navigate, I just grab the remote, don't even have to be looking at the tv to push the right button. Beat that. Desktop is dead, welcome linux.
Basically, the whole article has 1 message: you should cache stuff. I couldn't agree more. Why doing a database request every time a page is hit? Even if you're going to show the same information say 1000 times? By combining dynamic and static elements, the "server load" part of the slashdot effect can be eliminated, I think slashdot also does this, but differently.
Obviously, if you don't have enough bandwidth, you are screwed anyway, but usually it's the server load that is the problem.
No sales person, do a google search for shurdeek or grep changelogs in your favourite linux distro and you'll find out who I am:-) I don't have a problem complimenting good companies. I didn't know whichssl belonged to comodo, I just googled to find out a solution for my customer 2 months ago and whichssl came as one of them. I've been using it since without problems.
There is a nice page, http://www.whichssl.com. Through the comparison tables there I found comodo's http://www.instantssl.com. I generated a demo certificate first and after I had no problems with it, I bought it. For $49 a 128 bit, not 40. Recommended.
Basically it comes to this: the parties involved, such as MPAA, want to persuade us that their way of making money is the only correct one. They want the US to protect their obsolete business methods by making it illegal to compete. The CBDTPA will resolve in higher prices, slower development and crappy products (both the technological ones and the actual "art"). And, of course, as a bonus, a lot of people that have nothing to do with the problem will suddenly become criminals (those who aren't already because of DMCA). "When it rains it pours" comes to mind.
Apart from that, the proposal itself is contradictionary. The "protection methods" must be certified, safe, and open source (and I guess they actually must be working:-)). I don't see any way how to combine all these. If it's open source, you just make a decryption library, like libdvdcss, and anyone can use it for anything, so "cracking" it will actually be much easier than the CSS fiasco. If, theoretically, Microsoft developed a proprietary protection scheme, it would be "safer" from a practical point of view, but of course would be yet worse because it would monopolize the market.
Don't forget, the copyright was created to promote creation of works by protecting the authors and consumers from distributors, not for protecting distributors from other distributors. If some distributors are experiencing problems, it is because the market is in imbalance and the "invisible hand" of competition is trying to fix it.
Instead of restructuring, MPAA wants the US to "break" the poor invisible hand.
Unfortunately, the whole copyright law development in the last decades is like this, doing exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to. It is very important that this misconceptions are pointed out and made understandable to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Fortunately, mplayer only does data input/conversion/transfer/display (just like any software actually), and this is specifically exempt from patentabilty. Even the Blinkenlights vo module :-)
MfG shurdeek
According to the text (IANAL), adding hardware for data display/input/conversion/transfer still doesn't qualify being patentable. MfG shurdeek
Official Report by European Parliament
The most important element seems to be that software and algorithms per se can't be patented, and a patent needs a "technical contribution". Even more, basically you can't violate a patent by a normal program that processes data, even if the input/output is done by technical means such as a monitor or keyboard.
I find it highly unlikely that an open source developer (or a software development company in general) can violate such a software patent (it's called "computerised invention" actually, there will be no real "software patents").
The legislative process isn't finished yet, it has to pass some more stuff, but I've got a good feeling that we're on the right track.
Very many thanks to everyone who helped, be it a demonstration, donation, lobbying or whatever.
MfG shurdeek
There are 2 major points here: in reality the security of the system is a mix of the software and the people working with it. If the people don't have security in mind, no software will help them. The more important thing though, the difference between Win and Lin isn't that one of them is more secure per-se. It's just that I find it MUCH easier to secure a Linux machine than to secure a Windows machine. With Windows, one never knows WTF the beast is doing, and one is used not to care. MfG shurdeek
Well, I only have like 25 DVDs, but several thousand divx/mpeg/mp3/whatever, and with freevo+mplayer+remote I have a consistent interface for all that. I use my amp remote, which has extra buttons. I configured freevo/mplayer so that it automatically chooses language and subittles to how I like it so that I don't have to press ANY buttons.
I used powerdvd once, and found it too difficult to use, and totally user unfriendly. I also used a hardware dvd player once, and have to agree that those 1000s buttons on the remote are complicated as well.
Everything you said is true, until you realize there is a very natural user interface, the only one you should ever need for a media player: an infrared remote control. No windows, no mouse, no keyboard (only when debugging). If I want to navigate, I just grab the remote, don't even have to be looking at the tv to push the right button. Beat that. Desktop is dead, welcome linux.
Basically, the whole article has 1 message: you should cache stuff. I couldn't agree more. Why doing a database request every time a page is hit? Even if you're going to show the same information say 1000 times? By combining dynamic and static elements, the "server load" part of the slashdot effect can be eliminated, I think slashdot also does this, but differently.
Obviously, if you don't have enough bandwidth, you are screwed anyway, but usually it's the server load that is the problem.
MfG shurdeek
No sales person, do a google search for shurdeek or grep changelogs in your favourite linux distro and you'll find out who I am :-) I don't have a problem complimenting good companies. I didn't know whichssl belonged to comodo, I just googled to find out a solution for my customer 2 months ago and whichssl came as one of them. I've been using it since without problems.
There is a nice page, http://www.whichssl.com. Through the comparison tables there I found comodo's http://www.instantssl.com. I generated a demo certificate first and after I had no problems with it, I bought it. For $49 a 128 bit, not 40. Recommended.
Basically it comes to this: the parties involved, such as MPAA, want to persuade us that their way of making money is the only correct one. They want the US to protect their obsolete business methods by making it illegal to compete. The CBDTPA will resolve in higher prices, slower development and crappy products (both the technological ones and the actual "art"). And, of course, as a bonus, a lot of people that have nothing to do with the problem will suddenly become criminals (those who aren't already because of DMCA). "When it rains it pours" comes to mind.
:-)). I don't see any way how to combine all these. If it's open source, you just make a decryption library, like libdvdcss, and anyone can use it for anything, so "cracking" it will actually be much easier than the CSS fiasco. If, theoretically, Microsoft developed a proprietary protection scheme, it would be "safer" from a practical point of view, but of course would be yet worse because it would monopolize the market.
Apart from that, the proposal itself is contradictionary. The "protection methods" must be certified, safe, and open source (and I guess they actually must be working
Don't forget, the copyright was created to promote creation of works by protecting the authors and consumers from distributors, not for protecting distributors from other distributors. If some distributors are experiencing problems, it is because the market is in imbalance and the "invisible hand" of competition is trying to fix it.
Instead of restructuring, MPAA wants the US to "break" the poor invisible hand.
Unfortunately, the whole copyright law development in the last decades is like this, doing exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to. It is very important that this misconceptions are pointed out and made understandable to the public.
Bye, shurdeek