Ahhh, your theory has a huge hole. There are already plenty of independent labels not in the RIAA big 5 that produce a lot of music. They don't get as much exposure because they don't spend the same amount on promotion. Artists who are successful migrate from these independent labels to the RIAA labels if they're successful enough so they can make more money. REM is one example. I remember when they were on and independent label back before Document was released. The RIAA wants to enforce copyright protection because they are afraid it'll cut into their business. When a company reaches the 3dr stage of its existence, like the RIAA members, they're biggest responsibility to themselves is to protect their market. They're worried about piracy, not competition. They know they can sign artists from indie labels if they get popular enough since the indie labels don't have the resources to further the artists career like the big labels do.
The RIAA and MPAA have the same freedoms you and I share since these companies are composed of individuals just like you and me. They also deserve some fair use protection. If your not willing to give any ground either, then your as bad as Jack Valanti.
All you do when you make something open source is change the set of people who know how the thing works. This set still doesn't include the people responsible for election security because they most likely are not programmers and even if they are, how are they going to verify thousands of lines of code? And then they need to verify the compiler as well. I think you'd need to execute the machine code by hand to understand exactly what the processor. Then you need someone to verify exactly what the CPU does, presumably with a logic analyzer, etc. When she says FULLY verified, she is talking about all these details.
Re:Nothing new; DRM is still destined to failure.
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Did you even read the article? They're proposing a style of DRM whose only restriction is that it places a signature in the file to identify which pc created the file. How does this cripple hardware? This compromise seem in tune with current fair use legislation.
Did you even read the article? Apparently someone is listening because they are proposing an alternative to the one machine only DRM that everyone has been objecting to.
How is squishy DRM not private? If you aren't sharing your files, they are your private files, and no one knows about them. If you share them, which is illegal, you've chosen to make them public yourself. Sounds like you yourself gave up your privacy right at that point. I think this compromise is a great idea. People can make all the copies they want for their own PRIVATE use. If they distribute them to others though, prosecutors now can identify the criminal.
Re:Crack to stop all this...
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Guess what. People have already written viruses to delete your hard drive. You're just making a case for Palladium, which I bet was not your intent.
The example sounded like a good compromise
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
I slashdotters are really interested in fair use instead of piracy, I see no reason why an mp3 file with the signature of the pc that created it is a problem if the file is a normal mp3 in other respects. If you use the file on your own audio equipment, no one else sees the file. If you distribute the file over the internet, however, the RIAA has legal recourse. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Re:Too late. The cat is out of the bag.
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Who modded this unsubstantiated bullshit up to a 5? I especially like the part about how we force countries to take our loans. That's pretty funny. I also like how he made up some crap about killing Irquis with radiation. When you realize capitalism works because it gives people the option to trade with each other freely, allowing buyers and sellers to come to an agreement about a product or service, and how it relates to the work they've done, you realize it's a lot more free system than a communist system, where your work is worth nothing and you have to beg the govt to recognise what you consider needs to survive.
I doubt the patriot act has affected you personally one bit. Now if NYC gets nuked because the govt cant or wont do anything, that might affect you a little more. Remember bin laden's words "it is our religious duty to obtain nuclear weapons". Where do you think he wants to detonate them?
and 50,000 people die on the highway every year. These are accidents and they are tragic. 9/11 was no accident. Next time it could be 300,000 if the terrorists sneak in a nuclear device. 9/11 was not just an accident, it was an attack and now we are in a state of war. People want to know what's going on. How's that for perspective.
"The first thought that popped into my head was not about the horror of the event or even those who dies but rather a disturbed feeling that this is the start of a long erosion of everyone's rights." 3000 people died and the first thought that pops into your head is, great, now they're going to tap my phone? What's wrong with you and you too moderator fro giving this guy a 4). BTW, I doubt any legislation passed has directly affected you at all.
Yeah. Let's just go back to pre-9/11 security measurs and see how long before someone crashes a plane into the empire state building just because some guy was a little inconvenienced.
So what if you were already on the train. I'm glad they kicked you off. For all they know, you were a terrorist just waiting for the right opportunity to make your move. Obviously, security was bad in letting you on in the first place. It doesn't mean they shouldn't correct their error.
Well, from the Nazi point of view, we were probably meddling on D-Day. Shows you how well your theory holds water. A real test is, Are we protecting the freedom of individuals by our actions, or are we subjecting them to our will. The average person in Afghanistan would say the we did the former there. Same in Kuwait.
Even if every other person on slashdot refuses to give up anything to fight the war on terrorism, I will give up all privacy to the government. They can tap my phone, read my e-mail, even search my apartment. I don't care. I don't want to be remembered as someone who impeded the FBI in doing their job. I don't want to be a stumbling block in the discovery of future terrorist attacks against the US. I want to be a part of the solution, not the problem. I feel this sacrifice is minor compared to those made by others on and after 9/11/01, including firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and other brave citizens who have worked so hard to protect us from those who would destroy us all, given the opportunity.
I've seen a lot of posts about people worried about the civil rights of suspected terrorists. Just wondering how practical it would be to fight a guerrilla war in a public courtroom? How effective is it to eliminate enemy combatant when you need to publically display all the evidence needed to convict the suspected terrorist. It would certainly give away your position to let your enemy know exactly what you know about him. It may even compromise agents and informants. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just wondering if people have really considered the consequences of what they would like the government to do in the war on terrorism. It seems people are saying the government can't be trusted at all and if given extra powers to fight this war, they will be abused. Is this really a practical position to hold? I don't have the answers, but I think people here may see things a little too black and white.
Wasn't it Saddam who was trying to steal oil from Kuwait? I don't remember any reports of the US taking any oil after liberating Kuwait. By the way, I'm sure Europe is on al queda's agenda, you're just as much of an infidel as the average US citizen.
Although I agree with your premise, I don't agree with your solution. First the RIAA is not a single company. Breaking it up does you no good. Each music producer still has exclusive rights to the artists they sign. This is why there is no competition. The only legal choices are buy or don't buy. So the only government solution is to regulate the price of a CD. To me this is unconstitutional. Companies should not be run by the government. The best solution is a consumer boycott of music CDs. I for one refuse to pay more than $5 for a CD. I, therefore only buy CDs from BMG. If people stop buying CDs for $15, they will lower the price until the price*volume is maximized.
In the US, we believe in the protection of the rights of individuals. They can choose what they want to believe,as long as it doesn't interefere with the rights of others. Terrorists do not believe this. The Taliban does not believe this. They attacked the US. We basically left them alone before to believe whatever they wanted. Even the 93 attempt on the WTC and 2 Emabssy bombings later, we left them alone. I think 3000 deaths is reason enough to take a stand aginst those who believe they can destroy our way of life. I'm tired of hearing about how bad our foreign policy is, when if you look at the facts, we're always stepping in to help oppressed Muslims. The difference between the terrorist and the US, the US doesn't intentionally target civilians. If you can't see the distinction, then I feel sorry for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhh, your theory has a huge hole. There are already plenty of independent labels not in the RIAA big 5 that produce a lot of music. They don't get as much exposure because they don't spend the same amount on promotion. Artists who are successful migrate from these independent labels to the RIAA labels if they're successful enough so they can make more money. REM is one example. I remember when they were on and independent label back before Document was released. The RIAA wants to enforce copyright protection because they are afraid it'll cut into their business. When a company reaches the 3dr stage of its existence, like the RIAA members, they're biggest responsibility to themselves is to protect their market. They're worried about piracy, not competition. They know they can sign artists from indie labels if they get popular enough since the indie labels don't have the resources to further the artists career like the big labels do.
How is this insightful moderator when it isn't even on topic. What does this have to do with squishy DRM? Slashdot moderation is so biased
The RIAA and MPAA have the same freedoms you and I share since these companies are composed of individuals just like you and me. They also deserve some fair use protection. If your not willing to give any ground either, then your as bad as Jack Valanti.
All you do when you make something open source is change the set of people who know how the thing works. This set still doesn't include the people responsible for election security because they most likely are not programmers and even if they are, how are they going to verify thousands of lines of code? And then they need to verify the compiler as well. I think you'd need to execute the machine code by hand to understand exactly what the processor. Then you need someone to verify exactly what the CPU does, presumably with a logic analyzer, etc. When she says FULLY verified, she is talking about all these details.
Did you even read the article? They're proposing a style of DRM whose only restriction is that it places a signature in the file to identify which pc created the file. How does this cripple hardware? This compromise seem in tune with current fair use legislation.
Did you even read the article? Apparently someone is listening because they are proposing an alternative to the one machine only DRM that everyone has been objecting to.
How is squishy DRM not private? If you aren't sharing your files, they are your private files, and no one knows about them. If you share them, which is illegal, you've chosen to make them public yourself. Sounds like you yourself gave up your privacy right at that point. I think this compromise is a great idea. People can make all the copies they want for their own PRIVATE use. If they distribute them to others though, prosecutors now can identify the criminal.
Guess what. People have already written viruses to delete your hard drive. You're just making a case for Palladium, which I bet was not your intent.
I slashdotters are really interested in fair use instead of piracy, I see no reason why an mp3 file with the signature of the pc that created it is a problem if the file is a normal mp3 in other respects. If you use the file on your own audio equipment, no one else sees the file. If you distribute the file over the internet, however, the RIAA has legal recourse. Sounds like a good compromise to me.
Mozart died pennyless.
Who modded this unsubstantiated bullshit up to a 5? I especially like the part about how we force countries to take our loans. That's pretty funny. I also like how he made up some crap about killing Irquis with radiation. When you realize capitalism works because it gives people the option to trade with each other freely, allowing buyers and sellers to come to an agreement about a product or service, and how it relates to the work they've done, you realize it's a lot more free system than a communist system, where your work is worth nothing and you have to beg the govt to recognise what you consider needs to survive.
I doubt the patriot act has affected you personally one bit. Now if NYC gets nuked because the govt cant or wont do anything, that might affect you a little more. Remember bin laden's words "it is our religious duty to obtain nuclear weapons". Where do you think he wants to detonate them?
and 50,000 people die on the highway every year. These are accidents and they are tragic. 9/11 was no accident. Next time it could be 300,000 if the terrorists sneak in a nuclear device. 9/11 was not just an accident, it was an attack and now we are in a state of war. People want to know what's going on. How's that for perspective.
"The first thought that popped into my head was not about the horror of the event or even those who dies but rather a disturbed feeling that this is the start of a long erosion of everyone's rights." 3000 people died and the first thought that pops into your head is, great, now they're going to tap my phone? What's wrong with you and you too moderator fro giving this guy a 4). BTW, I doubt any legislation passed has directly affected you at all.
Ahh. I believe the approval rate in Panama for ousting Noriega was about 80%. Great example.
Yeah. Let's just go back to pre-9/11 security measurs and see how long before someone crashes a plane into the empire state building just because some guy was a little inconvenienced.
So what if you were already on the train. I'm glad they kicked you off. For all they know, you were a terrorist just waiting for the right opportunity to make your move. Obviously, security was bad in letting you on in the first place. It doesn't mean they shouldn't correct their error.
It will have to be if they are unwilling to give away the source. Good job Free Software Foundation. Now the free software is gone.
Well, from the Nazi point of view, we were probably meddling on D-Day. Shows you how well your theory holds water. A real test is, Are we protecting the freedom of individuals by our actions, or are we subjecting them to our will. The average person in Afghanistan would say the we did the former there. Same in Kuwait.
Even if every other person on slashdot refuses to give up anything to fight the war on terrorism, I will give up all privacy to the government. They can tap my phone, read my e-mail, even search my apartment. I don't care. I don't want to be remembered as someone who impeded the FBI in doing their job. I don't want to be a stumbling block in the discovery of future terrorist attacks against the US. I want to be a part of the solution, not the problem. I feel this sacrifice is minor compared to those made by others on and after 9/11/01, including firefighters, police officers, soldiers, and other brave citizens who have worked so hard to protect us from those who would destroy us all, given the opportunity.
Wow. That sucks. Sorry to hear that. I guess you get what you pay for with the free internet in Egypt. I hope the system gets better for you.
I've seen a lot of posts about people worried about the civil rights of suspected terrorists. Just wondering how practical it would be to fight a guerrilla war in a public courtroom? How effective is it to eliminate enemy combatant when you need to publically display all the evidence needed to convict the suspected terrorist. It would certainly give away your position to let your enemy know exactly what you know about him. It may even compromise agents and informants. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just wondering if people have really considered the consequences of what they would like the government to do in the war on terrorism. It seems people are saying the government can't be trusted at all and if given extra powers to fight this war, they will be abused. Is this really a practical position to hold? I don't have the answers, but I think people here may see things a little too black and white.
Wasn't it Saddam who was trying to steal oil from Kuwait? I don't remember any reports of the US taking any oil after liberating Kuwait. By the way, I'm sure Europe is on al queda's agenda, you're just as much of an infidel as the average US citizen.
Although I agree with your premise, I don't agree with your solution. First the RIAA is not a single company. Breaking it up does you no good. Each music producer still has exclusive rights to the artists they sign. This is why there is no competition. The only legal choices are buy or don't buy. So the only government solution is to regulate the price of a CD. To me this is unconstitutional. Companies should not be run by the government. The best solution is a consumer boycott of music CDs. I for one refuse to pay more than $5 for a CD. I, therefore only buy CDs from BMG. If people stop buying CDs for $15, they will lower the price until the price*volume is maximized.
In the US, we believe in the protection of the rights of individuals. They can choose what they want to believe,as long as it doesn't interefere with the rights of others. Terrorists do not believe this. The Taliban does not believe this. They attacked the US. We basically left them alone before to believe whatever they wanted. Even the 93 attempt on the WTC and 2 Emabssy bombings later, we left them alone. I think 3000 deaths is reason enough to take a stand aginst those who believe they can destroy our way of life. I'm tired of hearing about how bad our foreign policy is, when if you look at the facts, we're always stepping in to help oppressed Muslims. The difference between the terrorist and the US, the US doesn't intentionally target civilians. If you can't see the distinction, then I feel sorry for you.