"You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few/. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation."
If you think it's ok to for the govt. to dictate software makers what they can put in their product and then turn around and complain that the govt. is is screwing you with the DMCA, then you're a typical slashdotter who's getting what he deserves. Laws should protect the rights of individuals. Antitrust laws infringe on the rights of individuals. My point about Redhat is that if they ever dominate the market and get screwed by the govt., slashdotters won't be able to complain without showing what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Search and siezure is used to collect evidence. What the hell do you expect the FBI to do, call up the suspect and ask him to please bring his computer to FBI headquarters to help in an investigation? Are you going to say that they shouldn't have conviscated Malvo's.223 rifle either? He's innocent until proven guilty too.
Yeah. That's why the rich pay a higher percentage of income in income tax and ms has to go to court for being too successful. The rich are punished in America, not the poor. Everyone figures, hell they can afford it, and they're a minority anyway, so why not abuse the rich.
The whitepaper sounds like a bunch of unix gurus who were forced to use Windows bitching because it isn't unix. Sure some of their point may be valid, but how much of it is due to inexperience with windows and the inability to accept change?
All this antitrust bs is just protecting companies that can't compete. MS paying AOL x amount of money isn't going to change anthing. No one's forcing cell phone makers and cell phone providers to use MS software. MS is offering what the think is a good product. Take it or leave it. The bundling bs under CLinton thankfully was thrown out. Imagine if they start telling red hat what they can and cannot bundle, or any other Linux distro. It could happen some day if Linux topples MS and all you slashdot geeks will have to say you supported it when they did it to MS, and now it's come back to bite you in the ass. Every company that wants to sell any product will complain they can't compete because linux is bundling Mozilla or sendmail or whatever.
"It's obvious that microsoft wouldn't ever run an unmoderated message board, but that thread is so uniformly in support of banning modd'ed xboxes that I suspect the whole thing is faked."
So slashdot antiDRM posts are faked also by your reasoning?
Unfortunately, it will cost more than $500 to figure out who WzDood345 even is, by the time you get a court order for an ISP to tell you the info you need. It'll take more than a guy making minimum wage too to deal with all the legal entanglements. It's just not practical, which is the reasoning behind the DoS of pirates legislation.
If someone creates something, and someone makes a copy of it without compensating him for it, that is theft. It's no different than if you hack into someone's machine and steal their data, based on US law. Economics is not even a factor. It's a moral principle at stake. It takes work to create IP as well as a physical commodity, and that work needs to be protected if we are to respect the rights of individuals to free trade under mutually agreed upon terms.
The RIAA and MPAA cases are different. A cd burner is much cheaper than a dvd burner and a song takes little time to download, while few dvd quality movies can be found on p2p networks and take hours to download. As technology improves, the MPAA will face the problems currently faced by the RIAA. It will become worse for both as a pc becomes an integral component of a home entertainment system. $0 is cheaper than $20, so when the technology is cheap enough, there's no more incentive to buy. Maybe you don't care, but the average teenager has a lot of time on his hands and only the money he earns at minimum wage plus an allowance if he's lucky.
"The House Republican leader just stuck an exemption for Eli Lilly for lawsuits related to vaccines into the latest constitution-shredding security bill. That serves nobody's interests except Eli Lilly."
Eli Lilly produces vaccines that can be used in the event of a bio-attack. It is relevent to national security.
I don't see a problem with virtual McDonalds in the Sims as long as the benefits and drawbacks from eating at McDonalds for your sim in the Sims reflects reality.
Protesting is legal. Blocking traffic is illegal. The constitution gives you the right to free speech, but not anywhere you choose. You can't walk into my apt. with your protest without my permission, for example.
If MPAA members allow DRM files to be "rented" online, the video stores can't say no. And they have, as shown my movielink. Video stores will either follow suit, or lose market share. Viacom alone doesn't control the movie industry. No one likes returning movies, or even driving to get them, if they can get the same quality online, at the same price, they'll go for that instead. Apple will be left behind if they don't support DRM, and will lose market share as well.
DIVX is a completely different market. They tried to sell "rent many times" to someone who wanted to buy a movie. Most people only want to watch a movie once. That's blockbuster's market, which will be lost to online movie renting as bandwidth improves. Who wants to drive to the video store when you can download the same quality faster and not have to worry about the movie not being there? Online is the future of video rental.
If you see MS making your cell phone talk to your Windows computer as anticompetitive, and that MS should not be allowed to do this, despite the fact that any other sw maker can do the same thing, I would say that law is anticompetitve. As for bundling of IE, that was the govt. protecting a company (Netscape) with a product worth $0. How would you like it if the govt. starts telling Linus what can go into the Linux kernel? It could happen if Linux becomes the dominant force. Not so appetizing then when the shoe's on the other foot.
That is nonsense. You have no understanding of the Sherman Antitrust act. All companies in the US use profits to expand their markets. It's called free enterprise. Just look at Johnson and Johnson. Are they guilty of monopolistic practices?
On most pcs anyway, there is an s-video output to run your computer into your tv. They even have wireless setups if your computer isn't near your tv. Blockbuster is doing well now. Downloading a movie is a lot more convenient and soon the bandwidth will be available to get dvd quality in a reasonable time (less time than it takes to drive to the video store). This is the future of video rental. People hate having to return movies to the video store
Do you rent movies at blockbuster? Do you enjoy driving back and forth to pick up/return movies? Would you prefer to download a movie for $3 if it took half an hour to download and you had a week to watch it? I would, and I think the rest of America with broadband access would. True the download time will be more than a half hour now, but not in the future. DIVX was a failure because people wanted to buy those movies, not rent them over and over. We're talking about a market here where you rent a movie, watch it once, and toss it in the trash afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Figures slashdot would find the one liberal article in the national review and link to it.
"You would think that over the last 5-7 years a few /. readers would have learned that by now. But, they listent to the idiots from Microsoft who falsely represent the laws in order to fools others into thinking they are not in violation."
If you think it's ok to for the govt. to dictate software makers what they can put in their product and then turn around and complain that the govt. is is screwing you with the DMCA, then you're a typical slashdotter who's getting what he deserves. Laws should protect the rights of individuals. Antitrust laws infringe on the rights of individuals. My point about Redhat is that if they ever dominate the market and get screwed by the govt., slashdotters won't be able to complain without showing what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
If you ever win the lottery, and then pay half of it in taxes, then maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Read your service contract. That's what you agreed to.
Search and siezure is used to collect evidence. What the hell do you expect the FBI to do, call up the suspect and ask him to please bring his computer to FBI headquarters to help in an investigation? Are you going to say that they shouldn't have conviscated Malvo's .223 rifle either? He's innocent until proven guilty too.
Yeah. That's why the rich pay a higher percentage of income in income tax and ms has to go to court for being too successful. The rich are punished in America, not the poor. Everyone figures, hell they can afford it, and they're a minority anyway, so why not abuse the rich.
The whitepaper sounds like a bunch of unix gurus who were forced to use Windows bitching because it isn't unix. Sure some of their point may be valid, but how much of it is due to inexperience with windows and the inability to accept change?
It was a joke. Lighten up.
All this antitrust bs is just protecting companies that can't compete. MS paying AOL x amount of money isn't going to change anthing. No one's forcing cell phone makers and cell phone providers to use MS software. MS is offering what the think is a good product. Take it or leave it. The bundling bs under CLinton thankfully was thrown out. Imagine if they start telling red hat what they can and cannot bundle, or any other Linux distro. It could happen some day if Linux topples MS and all you slashdot geeks will have to say you supported it when they did it to MS, and now it's come back to bite you in the ass. Every company that wants to sell any product will complain they can't compete because linux is bundling Mozilla or sendmail or whatever.
"It's obvious that microsoft wouldn't ever run an unmoderated message board, but that thread is so uniformly in support of banning modd'ed xboxes that I suspect the whole thing is faked."
So slashdot antiDRM posts are faked also by your reasoning?
Unfortunately, it will cost more than $500 to figure out who WzDood345 even is, by the time you get a court order for an ISP to tell you the info you need. It'll take more than a guy making minimum wage too to deal with all the legal entanglements. It's just not practical, which is the reasoning behind the DoS of pirates legislation.
If someone creates something, and someone makes a copy of it without compensating him for it, that is theft. It's no different than if you hack into someone's machine and steal their data, based on US law. Economics is not even a factor. It's a moral principle at stake. It takes work to create IP as well as a physical commodity, and that work needs to be protected if we are to respect the rights of individuals to free trade under mutually agreed upon terms.
The RIAA and MPAA cases are different. A cd burner is much cheaper than a dvd burner and a song takes little time to download, while few dvd quality movies can be found on p2p networks and take hours to download. As technology improves, the MPAA will face the problems currently faced by the RIAA. It will become worse for both as a pc becomes an integral component of a home entertainment system. $0 is cheaper than $20, so when the technology is cheap enough, there's no more incentive to buy. Maybe you don't care, but the average teenager has a lot of time on his hands and only the money he earns at minimum wage plus an allowance if he's lucky.
A lock may not be perfect, but it's better than no lock if you can't trust your neighbors.
"The House Republican leader just stuck an exemption for Eli Lilly for lawsuits related to vaccines into the latest constitution-shredding security bill. That serves nobody's interests except Eli Lilly."
Eli Lilly produces vaccines that can be used in the event of a bio-attack. It is relevent to national security.
I don't see a problem with virtual McDonalds in the Sims as long as the benefits and drawbacks from eating at McDonalds for your sim in the Sims reflects reality.
Protesting is legal. Blocking traffic is illegal. The constitution gives you the right to free speech, but not anywhere you choose. You can't walk into my apt. with your protest without my permission, for example.
"Give me an example when "vote with your money" has ever worked. "
DIVX.
If MPAA members allow DRM files to be "rented" online, the video stores can't say no. And they have, as shown my movielink. Video stores will either follow suit, or lose market share. Viacom alone doesn't control the movie industry. No one likes returning movies, or even driving to get them, if they can get the same quality online, at the same price, they'll go for that instead. Apple will be left behind if they don't support DRM, and will lose market share as well.
DIVX is a completely different market. They tried to sell "rent many times" to someone who wanted to buy a movie. Most people only want to watch a movie once. That's blockbuster's market, which will be lost to online movie renting as bandwidth improves. Who wants to drive to the video store when you can download the same quality faster and not have to worry about the movie not being there? Online is the future of video rental.
My typing skills are not my strong suit.
If you see MS making your cell phone talk to your Windows computer as anticompetitive, and that MS should not be allowed to do this, despite the fact that any other sw maker can do the same thing, I would say that law is anticompetitve. As for bundling of IE, that was the govt. protecting a company (Netscape) with a product worth $0. How would you like it if the govt. starts telling Linus what can go into the Linux kernel? It could happen if Linux becomes the dominant force. Not so appetizing then when the shoe's on the other foot.
That is nonsense. You have no understanding of the Sherman Antitrust act. All companies in the US use profits to expand their markets. It's called free enterprise. Just look at Johnson and Johnson. Are they guilty of monopolistic practices?
On most pcs anyway, there is an s-video output to run your computer into your tv. They even have wireless setups if your computer isn't near your tv. Blockbuster is doing well now. Downloading a movie is a lot more convenient and soon the bandwidth will be available to get dvd quality in a reasonable time (less time than it takes to drive to the video store). This is the future of video rental. People hate having to return movies to the video store
Do you rent movies at blockbuster? Do you enjoy driving back and forth to pick up/return movies? Would you prefer to download a movie for $3 if it took half an hour to download and you had a week to watch it? I would, and I think the rest of America with broadband access would. True the download time will be more than a half hour now, but not in the future. DIVX was a failure because people wanted to buy those movies, not rent them over and over. We're talking about a market here where you rent a movie, watch it once, and toss it in the trash afterwards.