Looks like I can't edit posts on Slashdot (it's been years). I remember hearing about dihydrogen monoxide in my high school chemistry class. And also in a college science class, and once or twice by people I knew. You know, It even sounds more dangerous than carbon dioxide. Did you know that even a small amount of inhilation can lead to death? See also, http://www.dhmo.org/ of http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
You may call me a "global warming skeptic" if it pleases. But I wonder, isn't there more species diversity in tropical climates? Despite whether or not there is warming, whether or not it is man-made, solar-induced, etc... I'm kind of thinking of Darwin and his travels and the theory of evolution. For example, the rainforests of the Amazon. Don't warmer climates lead to more rain? CO2 levels not coming at the expense of oxygen levels (plants are able to photosynthesize better). Granted there are some polluting industries that should be kept within the boundaries of being environmentally responsible. Better cars and industrial processes. I'm not denouncing the research and development of "green" technologies and better emissions standards for newer vehicles/equipment (efficient energy utilization), but is it really Carbon Dioxide (plant food which leads to O2 and crops we consume), or is it industrial (toxic) waste that's the greater danger to the planet? I've also heard that the other planets in the solar system are arguably having "global warming" as well and that the sun is causing this. I haven't received a dollar from the oil companies and sometimes even resent them as I fill up my car. Just because I am skeptical of AGW doesn't mean I should be treated as a "creationist" (I watched the NOVA special on Dover's school board and the trial). In many ways, the creationists involved who were on the attack were fools. But "creationism" is a broad brush with which to paint other people. Science is about finding models that fit and discarding ones that don't. But also being open to new findings. Who knows, perhaps Gore (as well as Clinton, Bush, and Obama) scammed us. Strange things happen.
You're dead right! I haven't logged in to Slashdot in so long I can't even remember how long it's been. Digg converted me:). But seriously that's exactly right. I loathe the argument that saying X destroys the morale of the troops. If whatever is said are lies, why would it destroy morale? Most people should still know better. If, on the other hand, it's true but still a little morale destroying.. well it's part of the job of being a soldier. If someone is a soldier and finds out something bad about our government and feels a little less like fighting, it's both a good thing and a bad thing. Of course, it depends on who you are.. to a senator or a president obviously it's a bad thing. But the thing that makes this country great.. even in it's bad times is that people are generally allowed to tell it like it is without repercussions. Many places in this world aren't like that, and it's sad. There are a lot of "systems" out there that simply can't exist without repression (North Korea comes to mind). But right now, we are at a crossroads.. our government can repress us more and more.. and it does to an extent but not too bad. Even crazy sounding conspiracy theories (Illuminati anyone?) can be posted, and yet people aren't executed for it. Sure, Guantanamo and other secret prisons are bad, and we should get rid of them, we have a biased press, and the executive branch has a bit too much power right now. But still, it could be much worse and yet we generally still have our basic freedoms. Sure cops are dicks, and we have seen a diminishing of our Constitution lately. And our Congress is generally bought and paid for (with a few exceptions). But I see it as a lack of good leadership, not necessarily completely rotten. (Without explicitly naming him) I hope people will vote for THE right candidate in the upcoming presidential election. It would be a good start. Seriously though, it looks like America will continue to go downhill and it saddens me, but maybe we've just had it coming. Noam Chomsky, love him or hate him, I think put it well when he said that being an empire on the outside and a democracy on the inside are opposed to each-other. But for the empire that the United States is, and the democracy that it is too, I must say that it is doing it surprisingly well. Still, I think that ultimately we as a country will need to cut down on the imperialism, and we will be the better for it when we do. But what do I know, I'm just a random slashdotter who hasn't even logged in for over a year. So yeah, back to what I was originally saying, our troops aren't babies and anyone who says "X will hurt the troops" are treating them like children - which they're not. They're soldiers, they're grown men (and women), and if they can't take a little meaningful criticism that isn't even personally directed towards them, maybe just maybe the army isn't the best place for them. "Sticks and stones..."
While we're at it, let's start a War on Phones! The War on Terrorism, and the War on Drugs was effective, right? Hell, let's even impose mandatory sentencing guidelines. What's that.. prisons are full? Well, I guess we'll just have to let all those robbers and rapists go.. after all, they don't kill anyone.
Seriously though, awareness is what's needed, not more laws that aren't going to work. Bad drivers are nothing new. I'll talk on my phone when I drive, and I've never had anything that could remotely be considered a close call (pardon the pun) while driving while on the phone. But on the other hand, I prioritize driving above talking on the phone. When I drive, I sound a bit distracted on the phone. This is preferable to being distracted on the road. I'm sure a good portion of drivers do this too while talking on the phone, but then again there's also drivers who you can tell have completely immersed themselves in the conversation.
There are already laws which penalize people from getting into accidents. If the government should be doing anything about this, again, they should help raise awareness. Not pass another costly and wholly ineffective law that penalizes the good with the bad (drivers).
Troll? I don't see how GP is wrong. GP was refering to a component with little to no useful function being pushed on the consumer.
Catalytic converters come standard on cars when you get them. That and they serve a public interest - reduced toxicity of emissions. I'm fairly certain there's laws requiring them too... thanks for playing tho
I wonder if it will ever be feasible to have variable-friction tires on conventional roads. Higher friction for when you want to accelerate/brake or when the road conditions are poor, and lower friction for cruising/turning the steering wheel. I know one major requirement this would have to overcome would be a fast response time when switching from low to high friction.
Hitler and the Nazi party were strongly anti-tobacco.
"Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian Nazi as well. No need to consider what he said. Don't think about it, just reflexively discount it. If he knew anything about anything, he would be a non-Nazi."
So according to that logic, we should all start smoking.
Re:Dapper is good, but it's not there yet.
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is one of the things that has bugged me the most about Linux distros, but it's all as a result of software patents and copyrights, not a fault of the distros.
On Ubuntu's site, there is an easy and excelent step-by-step walkthrough to get everything to work, as well as an explanation for why they legally cannot include that stuff in the core distro. RestrictedFormats. Another thing I had trouble with is getting midi to work (not sure why that didn't work out-of-the box, but Ubuntu's wiki had good instructions for getting midi files to work too. I downloaded the DVD iso and I must say, the install and desktop experience is the best I've had - Windows or Linux.
They are also in the process of trying to reach a point of automation where getting everything working is as easy as possible while still complying with the law. See RestrictedFormatsProblem and RestrictedFormatsSolutions.
And as always, if you want it done faster, feel free to lend them a hand. The solution you propose is being worked out and discussed; for starters you can look here. As far as the law goes, well, the congressional elections are coming soon (if you live in the US) so find out how your incumbent has been voting and get 'em out if you don't agree with how they've been voting on tech issues.
I see no reason to trust the government. They don't need it. Trust is a very interesting word. From the Trusted Computing FAQ.
24. So why is this called `Trusted Computing'? I don't see why I should trust it at all!
It's almost an in-joke. In the US Department of Defense, a `trusted system or component' is defined as `one which can break the security policy'. This might seem counter-intuitive at first, but just stop to think about it. The mail guard or firewall that stands between a Secret and a Top Secret system can - if it fails - break the security policy that mail should only ever flow from Secret to Top Secret, but never in the other direction. It is therefore trusted to enforce the information flow policy.
Or take a civilian example: suppose you trust your doctor to keep your medical records private. This means that he has access to your records, so he could leak them to the press if he were careless or malicious. You don't trust me to keep your medical records, because I don't have them; regardless of whether I like you or hate you, I can't do anything to affect your policy that your medical records should be confidential. Your doctor can, though; and the fact that he is in a position to harm you is really what is meant (at a system level) when you say that you trust him. You may have a warm feeling about him, or you may just have to trust him because he is the only doctor on the island where you live; no matter, the DoD definition strips away these fuzzy, emotional aspects of `trust' (that can confuse people).
During the late 1990s, as people debated government control over cryptography, Al Gore proposed a `Trusted Third Party' - a service that would keep a copy of your decryption key safe, just in case you (or the FBI, or the NSA) ever needed it. The name was derided as the sort of marketing exercise that saw the Russian colony of East Germany called the `German Democratic Republic'. But it really does chime with DoD thinking. A Trusted Third Party is a third party that can break your security policy.
Evesdropping on private communication without warrants is a far cry from joining public chat rooms and bringing in a pediophile who initiates contact and sets up a meeting. Pro-censorship arguments have yet to convince me that having a system capable of silencing political opinion without oversight that warrants give is a good thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is the US already has the controls, and they are working fine as-is. The US government should respect its own laws. As for governments such as PRC, Amnesty International has good reason for concern.
To be honest, I really don't like the copyright system. However, if both software copyrights and software patents were abolished everywhere tomorrow, what consequences would it have?
I know this discussion is about copyright as it relates to the movie/recording industry associations. I think that artists would continue to be successful, because people would go to concerts, buy t-shirts or whatever, even if copyright were to be repealed. And we'd be better without the *AA's
However, if copyright were to be repealed, would most software companies die due to legalized piracy? Would it become economically infeasible for someone to write software for a living? Or, would people still be able to write code all day?
If you think so, what system do you suggest we have? Copyright seems to me to be a necessary evil (unless anyone has any better ideas).
Copyright infringement is to stealing as cp is to mv.
Definition of theft: 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
or from the Thompson & Gale Legal Encyclopedia: A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Definition of steal: 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Definition of take: To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
1. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
2. To seize with authority; confiscate.
So...
"for instance if I plug something into an outlet at your house, you are not deprived of anything yet I have stolen, have I not."
My electic bill would be greater because of you. As a direct result of your action, I have to pay more money. You have taken something of value that wasn't yours.
"How about unused bandwidth on an open wifi spot. (open by stupididy, not on purpose). Again you are not 'deprived' of anything yet it is still 'stealing'"
I can see people mistakenly calling it 'stealing'. But as long as it's an unmetered connection (in other words, not charged per kilobyte or whatever), the owner is not suffering any loss. Of course there may be laws against unauthorized access, but those are generally for security reasons. I have an open wifi connection, and don't see why I should get angry if people use it. If people abuse it, I'll secure it.
What I'm starting to think is that Microsoft is approaching a crossroads with their operating system buisiness and have three options.
Hire enough programmers to maintain backward compatibility with their operating systems. (may soon be becoming financially infeasible)
Drop backward compatibility.
Employ anticompetitive practices. Flood competitors with patent infringement cases like a Denial of Service attack.
Though the option of dropping backward compatibility may make sense at first glance, I don't think it will happen. The second Microsoft announces the end of backward compatibility will be the second most people have every reason to switch to Linux or Mac. After all, Microsoft's biggest advantage is the sheer volume of applications and games which only work on their platform.
Rather I expect Microsoft to once again employ anticompetitive acts. So as long as the market has no viable alternatives, Microsoft will continue to hold its monopoly no matter how bad they blunder. Could open source projects be able to withstand hundereds or thousands of patent infringement suits or would they simply fold? Sadly, I think many would fold.
The only questions left then are whether the living human being is a person -- which requires some sophistry to deny -- and whether abortion could be justifiable homicide.
I don't think it's that simple. The whole issue of abortion, at least to me, seems to be about the question of when it becomes wrong to "kill".
For instance, a fertilized egg has the potential to become President one day. But then again, hours eariler, so did each of the guy's little warriors. So the case against abortion and/or birth control shouldn't be about the potential of so much more to come.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometime between a fertilized egg and adulthood it becomes wrong to kill "someone". Personally, I would place that around the time a fetus is actually capable of feeling pain (i.e. has a nervous system) and very basic thought. I honestly see nothing wrong with killing "babies" before that stage in development (I don't know how many days/months after conception that is and I don't know what exactly the law says about that). Otherwise I'd be a hippocrite every time I swat a fly.
A lot of people will disagree with this on the basis of the religious viewpoint that "souls" come into existence when the sperm fertilizes the egg. I think that if we are as a society going to illegalize anything because of something that is entirely a religious concept, we should first reexamine if we should have a unity of church and state. Because last I checked we didn't.
Because the record companies (rightfully) justify the high cd prices, monopoly on selling a song, and lawsuits against the general public by saying that you're buying the right to listen to the music.
Parent is pointing out that the record companies shouldn't have it both ways. If the record companies cause you to lose your ability to listen to the music (by preventing you from backing it up for instance), they should have to provide you a free replacement. Or at most a cd at cost but I personally think that if they make the customer "suffer" a little, they should have to "suffer" a little as well and provide replacements for free. After all, they are placing artificial limitations and making the customer go through extra work and a period of deprival.
I've seen a couple of gas stations do something similar with their fountain drinks. One time, I needed a large cup of water for my car. They charged the full price of a fountain drink and justified it with the supposed expense of the cup. Yet if you took your own cup in and gave yourself a refill, you can bet they'd charge for that too. Though at least in this case, I could always go to a different store and if I found a way to make a copy of a friend's Pepsi they wouldn't be suing me over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like I can't edit posts on Slashdot (it's been years). I remember hearing about dihydrogen monoxide in my high school chemistry class. And also in a college science class, and once or twice by people I knew. You know, It even sounds more dangerous than carbon dioxide. Did you know that even a small amount of inhilation can lead to death? See also, http://www.dhmo.org/ of http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
You may call me a "global warming skeptic" if it pleases. But I wonder, isn't there more species diversity in tropical climates? Despite whether or not there is warming, whether or not it is man-made, solar-induced, etc... I'm kind of thinking of Darwin and his travels and the theory of evolution. For example, the rainforests of the Amazon. Don't warmer climates lead to more rain? CO2 levels not coming at the expense of oxygen levels (plants are able to photosynthesize better). Granted there are some polluting industries that should be kept within the boundaries of being environmentally responsible. Better cars and industrial processes. I'm not denouncing the research and development of "green" technologies and better emissions standards for newer vehicles/equipment (efficient energy utilization), but is it really Carbon Dioxide (plant food which leads to O2 and crops we consume), or is it industrial (toxic) waste that's the greater danger to the planet? I've also heard that the other planets in the solar system are arguably having "global warming" as well and that the sun is causing this. I haven't received a dollar from the oil companies and sometimes even resent them as I fill up my car. Just because I am skeptical of AGW doesn't mean I should be treated as a "creationist" (I watched the NOVA special on Dover's school board and the trial). In many ways, the creationists involved who were on the attack were fools. But "creationism" is a broad brush with which to paint other people. Science is about finding models that fit and discarding ones that don't. But also being open to new findings. Who knows, perhaps Gore (as well as Clinton, Bush, and Obama) scammed us. Strange things happen.
You're dead right! I haven't logged in to Slashdot in so long I can't even remember how long it's been. Digg converted me :). But seriously that's exactly right. I loathe the argument that saying X destroys the morale of the troops. If whatever is said are lies, why would it destroy morale? Most people should still know better. If, on the other hand, it's true but still a little morale destroying.. well it's part of the job of being a soldier. If someone is a soldier and finds out something bad about our government and feels a little less like fighting, it's both a good thing and a bad thing. Of course, it depends on who you are.. to a senator or a president obviously it's a bad thing. But the thing that makes this country great.. even in it's bad times is that people are generally allowed to tell it like it is without repercussions. Many places in this world aren't like that, and it's sad. There are a lot of "systems" out there that simply can't exist without repression (North Korea comes to mind). But right now, we are at a crossroads.. our government can repress us more and more.. and it does to an extent but not too bad. Even crazy sounding conspiracy theories (Illuminati anyone?) can be posted, and yet people aren't executed for it. Sure, Guantanamo and other secret prisons are bad, and we should get rid of them, we have a biased press, and the executive branch has a bit too much power right now. But still, it could be much worse and yet we generally still have our basic freedoms. Sure cops are dicks, and we have seen a diminishing of our Constitution lately. And our Congress is generally bought and paid for (with a few exceptions). But I see it as a lack of good leadership, not necessarily completely rotten. (Without explicitly naming him) I hope people will vote for THE right candidate in the upcoming presidential election. It would be a good start. Seriously though, it looks like America will continue to go downhill and it saddens me, but maybe we've just had it coming. Noam Chomsky, love him or hate him, I think put it well when he said that being an empire on the outside and a democracy on the inside are opposed to each-other. But for the empire that the United States is, and the democracy that it is too, I must say that it is doing it surprisingly well. Still, I think that ultimately we as a country will need to cut down on the imperialism, and we will be the better for it when we do. But what do I know, I'm just a random slashdotter who hasn't even logged in for over a year. So yeah, back to what I was originally saying, our troops aren't babies and anyone who says "X will hurt the troops" are treating them like children - which they're not. They're soldiers, they're grown men (and women), and if they can't take a little meaningful criticism that isn't even personally directed towards them, maybe just maybe the army isn't the best place for them. "Sticks and stones ..."
While we're at it, let's start a War on Phones! The War on Terrorism, and the War on Drugs was effective, right? Hell, let's even impose mandatory sentencing guidelines. What's that.. prisons are full? Well, I guess we'll just have to let all those robbers and rapists go.. after all, they don't kill anyone.
Seriously though, awareness is what's needed, not more laws that aren't going to work. Bad drivers are nothing new. I'll talk on my phone when I drive, and I've never had anything that could remotely be considered a close call (pardon the pun) while driving while on the phone. But on the other hand, I prioritize driving above talking on the phone. When I drive, I sound a bit distracted on the phone. This is preferable to being distracted on the road. I'm sure a good portion of drivers do this too while talking on the phone, but then again there's also drivers who you can tell have completely immersed themselves in the conversation.
There are already laws which penalize people from getting into accidents. If the government should be doing anything about this, again, they should help raise awareness. Not pass another costly and wholly ineffective law that penalizes the good with the bad (drivers).
Plus, patent trolls can be discretely funded by other companies. Kinda like what MS was doing with SCO, IIRC.
That sounds like a good idea. Maybe somehow include a list of offenses against John Q Public so people will know where it's coming from.
Troll? I don't see how GP is wrong. GP was refering to a component with little to no useful function being pushed on the consumer.
Catalytic converters come standard on cars when you get them. That and they serve a public interest - reduced toxicity of emissions. I'm fairly certain there's laws requiring them too... thanks for playing tho
Yeah, but how positive can the FBI be? All it takes is a LiveCD.
D'oh, it's late. I meant to list "turning the steering wheel" as needing high-friction, not low. Good thing I'm not an automotive engineer :).
I wonder if it will ever be feasible to have variable-friction tires on conventional roads. Higher friction for when you want to accelerate/brake or when the road conditions are poor, and lower friction for cruising/turning the steering wheel. I know one major requirement this would have to overcome would be a fast response time when switching from low to high friction.
I just hope they don't get another monopoly. I'm sure they could easily quash little guys with their patent armada if they wanted.
Hitler and the Nazi party were strongly anti-tobacco.
"Dietrich proudly wears the label of Nazi And so he can't ever be correct, and anyone who listens to him is obviously a partisian Nazi as well. No need to consider what he said. Don't think about it, just reflexively discount it. If he knew anything about anything, he would be a non-Nazi."
So according to that logic, we should all start smoking.
This is one of the things that has bugged me the most about Linux distros, but it's all as a result of software patents and copyrights, not a fault of the distros.
On Ubuntu's site, there is an easy and excelent step-by-step walkthrough to get everything to work, as well as an explanation for why they legally cannot include that stuff in the core distro. RestrictedFormats. Another thing I had trouble with is getting midi to work (not sure why that didn't work out-of-the box, but Ubuntu's wiki had good instructions for getting midi files to work too. I downloaded the DVD iso and I must say, the install and desktop experience is the best I've had - Windows or Linux.
They are also in the process of trying to reach a point of automation where getting everything working is as easy as possible while still complying with the law. See RestrictedFormatsProblem and RestrictedFormatsSolutions.
And as always, if you want it done faster, feel free to lend them a hand. The solution you propose is being worked out and discussed; for starters you can look here. As far as the law goes, well, the congressional elections are coming soon (if you live in the US) so find out how your incumbent has been voting and get 'em out if you don't agree with how they've been voting on tech issues.
Brilliant! An excelent argument from an ecological perspective of why piracy is good :-).
I think China, because the United States doesn't have a Great Firewall yet.
Evesdropping on private communication without warrants is a far cry from joining public chat rooms and bringing in a pediophile who initiates contact and sets up a meeting. Pro-censorship arguments have yet to convince me that having a system capable of silencing political opinion without oversight that warrants give is a good thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is the US already has the controls, and they are working fine as-is. The US government should respect its own laws. As for governments such as PRC, Amnesty International has good reason for concern.
Well, the GP did say "unused" :-).
To be honest, I really don't like the copyright system. However, if both software copyrights and software patents were abolished everywhere tomorrow, what consequences would it have?
I know this discussion is about copyright as it relates to the movie/recording industry associations. I think that artists would continue to be successful, because people would go to concerts, buy t-shirts or whatever, even if copyright were to be repealed. And we'd be better without the *AA's
However, if copyright were to be repealed, would most software companies die due to legalized piracy? Would it become economically infeasible for someone to write software for a living? Or, would people still be able to write code all day?
If you think so, what system do you suggest we have? Copyright seems to me to be a necessary evil (unless anyone has any better ideas).
Copyright infringement is to stealing as cp is to mv.
Definition of theft:
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
or from the Thompson & Gale Legal Encyclopedia:
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Definition of steal:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Definition of take:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
1. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
2. To seize with authority; confiscate.
So...
"for instance if I plug something into an outlet at your house, you are not deprived of anything yet I have stolen, have I not."
My electic bill would be greater because of you. As a direct result of your action, I have to pay more money. You have taken something of value that wasn't yours.
"How about unused bandwidth on an open wifi spot. (open by stupididy, not on purpose). Again you are not 'deprived' of anything yet it is still 'stealing'"
I can see people mistakenly calling it 'stealing'. But as long as it's an unmetered connection (in other words, not charged per kilobyte or whatever), the owner is not suffering any loss. Of course there may be laws against unauthorized access, but those are generally for security reasons. I have an open wifi connection, and don't see why I should get angry if people use it. If people abuse it, I'll secure it.
Yes, but will Duke Nukem Forever be done before then?
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/
OK sorry couldn't resist
What I'm starting to think is that Microsoft is approaching a crossroads with their operating system buisiness and have three options.
Though the option of dropping backward compatibility may make sense at first glance, I don't think it will happen. The second Microsoft announces the end of backward compatibility will be the second most people have every reason to switch to Linux or Mac. After all, Microsoft's biggest advantage is the sheer volume of applications and games which only work on their platform.
Rather I expect Microsoft to once again employ anticompetitive acts. So as long as the market has no viable alternatives, Microsoft will continue to hold its monopoly no matter how bad they blunder. Could open source projects be able to withstand hundereds or thousands of patent infringement suits or would they simply fold? Sadly, I think many would fold.
Parent's post reminded me of this picture of a pirated copy of XP pro with the (in)famous FCKGW key.
Disclaimer: no this is not my blog.
I don't think it's that simple. The whole issue of abortion, at least to me, seems to be about the question of when it becomes wrong to "kill".
For instance, a fertilized egg has the potential to become President one day. But then again, hours eariler, so did each of the guy's little warriors. So the case against abortion and/or birth control shouldn't be about the potential of so much more to come.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometime between a fertilized egg and adulthood it becomes wrong to kill "someone". Personally, I would place that around the time a fetus is actually capable of feeling pain (i.e. has a nervous system) and very basic thought. I honestly see nothing wrong with killing "babies" before that stage in development (I don't know how many days/months after conception that is and I don't know what exactly the law says about that). Otherwise I'd be a hippocrite every time I swat a fly.
A lot of people will disagree with this on the basis of the religious viewpoint that "souls" come into existence when the sperm fertilizes the egg. I think that if we are as a society going to illegalize anything because of something that is entirely a religious concept, we should first reexamine if we should have a unity of church and state. Because last I checked we didn't.
Are you kidding?
I'd get a cyborg monkey. If my parents ever complained that my basement was getting too messy all I'd have to do is add a cronjob.
I for one welcome our new Linux-running cyborg monkeys.
Because the record companies (rightfully) justify the high cd prices, monopoly on selling a song, and lawsuits against the general public by saying that you're buying the right to listen to the music.
Parent is pointing out that the record companies shouldn't have it both ways. If the record companies cause you to lose your ability to listen to the music (by preventing you from backing it up for instance), they should have to provide you a free replacement. Or at most a cd at cost but I personally think that if they make the customer "suffer" a little, they should have to "suffer" a little as well and provide replacements for free. After all, they are placing artificial limitations and making the customer go through extra work and a period of deprival.
I've seen a couple of gas stations do something similar with their fountain drinks. One time, I needed a large cup of water for my car. They charged the full price of a fountain drink and justified it with the supposed expense of the cup. Yet if you took your own cup in and gave yourself a refill, you can bet they'd charge for that too. Though at least in this case, I could always go to a different store and if I found a way to make a copy of a friend's Pepsi they wouldn't be suing me over it.