You don't get it. The RIAA started seeing lower revenue without any copy protection on CDs. So consumers are protesting not having DRM by your arguement.
So you're saying Hollywood's problems are not related to copy protection, but qulality of product. BTW, liberal != libertarian. Libertarians are in much better agreement with conservatives than liberals on a number of issues.
You forgot to include losses through theft. Paying a security guard to watch your merchandise doesn't increase it's value either, but if that expense kepps people from walking off with it, you increase your profit. The issue isn't black and white from a profit stand point.
The RIAA had no copy protection on CDs, and suddenly profits started decreasing (coincidently around the time Napster came out). Apparently, no copy protection isn't the answer either to maximize profits.
Intuit's problem was that their DRM was too restrictive. They need a way to allow the sw to be installed on 3 computers for instance, but no more. Then people couldn't complain about legitimate uses of the sw being hampered. However, Intuit is still losing money on people passing the sw around the office, etc., so to maximise profit they need some less noticeable DRM.
Like people are going to download music they've never heard before instead of what they hear on the radio. The RIAA makes money by sorting through the crap, picking bands they think people will like, and promoting them. That's their contribution to the music field. I won't even go into the economics of bands producing music with no chance to earn money from their work.
If file sharing is helping them out, why are revenues down? Your arguement makes no sense. They had no copy protection and revenue went down. Intuit started using copy protection and their revenue went down. Two entirely different situations.
The percentage of copy-protected CD's is extremely low. Blaming copy protection for RIAA losses is weak, especially given the popularity of p2p networks for trading songs. I think you don't understand. If there's a consumer backlash against the RIAA, it's in the form of people wanting to pay $0 for music instead of $15 and having the opportunity. I don't know anyone who refused to buy a cd because they were worried about copy protection. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who use p2p networks rather than buying cds.
" it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source. SCO says, "Whoops!" the Linux community says, "Hooray!" and the English language has a replacement for the phrase, "Hoist by his own petard." "
Unless you can show that SCO ADDED code to the GPL base, they were merely acting on good faith that the code was legitimate when they received it, and redistributed it. If the code they received to redistributed was tainted when they got it, they most likely won't be held accountable for inadvertantly releasing their source as GPL. This is because the source did not originate from them, but from some other unscrupulous source, and they were only passing on what they thought a original source.
It's probably some sort of oxidation process, so a nitrogen ambient will probably keep the disc alive for longer than 48 hrs too, and be a little easier to deal with.
You're right. Stallman's so-called freedom is actually a restriction on freedom. By saying you'd rather have choice than freedom, you're saying you'd rather have real freedom than Stallman's totalitarian version of freedom.
"This seems like it will be about as successful as the whole GIF ordeal a few years back. Where is UNISYS today? Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance"
Cadence sued Avant! some time ago over stolen code and settled for over $200M (story here). This case seems more like the SCO case if SCO's allegations are true. The good news is that this case will probably drag out in court for a decade, which is probably why SCO doen't want to reveal the offending code. They want to collect royalties for a decade, not have the offending code replaced in a year.
I used NT 4 for a few years. Worked great. Never crashed. MacOS at the time would crash every half hour surfing the web. It was complete crap and you're completely clueless.
A geek? He should be claiming instead...
on
Dancing Barefoot
·
· Score: -1, Troll
The RIAA has no obligation to make it easy for you to copy their material. Fair use only means that if you manage to copy something, you can't be sued for it if it falls under fair use. That said, the DMCA goes too far, but their's nothing wrong with them using DRM if they choose.
Slashdot Mirror
But they're lower than before Napster got started dumb-ass.
You don't get it. The RIAA started seeing lower revenue without any copy protection on CDs. So consumers are protesting not having DRM by your arguement.
So you're saying Hollywood's problems are not related to copy protection, but qulality of product. BTW, liberal != libertarian. Libertarians are in much better agreement with conservatives than liberals on a number of issues.
You forgot to include losses through theft. Paying a security guard to watch your merchandise doesn't increase it's value either, but if that expense kepps people from walking off with it, you increase your profit. The issue isn't black and white from a profit stand point.
The RIAA had no copy protection on CDs, and suddenly profits started decreasing (coincidently around the time Napster came out). Apparently, no copy protection isn't the answer either to maximize profits.
Intuit's problem was that their DRM was too restrictive. They need a way to allow the sw to be installed on 3 computers for instance, but no more. Then people couldn't complain about legitimate uses of the sw being hampered. However, Intuit is still losing money on people passing the sw around the office, etc., so to maximise profit they need some less noticeable DRM.
Like people are going to download music they've never heard before instead of what they hear on the radio. The RIAA makes money by sorting through the crap, picking bands they think people will like, and promoting them. That's their contribution to the music field. I won't even go into the economics of bands producing music with no chance to earn money from their work.
If file sharing is helping them out, why are revenues down? Your arguement makes no sense. They had no copy protection and revenue went down. Intuit started using copy protection and their revenue went down. Two entirely different situations.
The percentage of copy-protected CD's is extremely low. Blaming copy protection for RIAA losses is weak, especially given the popularity of p2p networks for trading songs. I think you don't understand. If there's a consumer backlash against the RIAA, it's in the form of people wanting to pay $0 for music instead of $15 and having the opportunity. I don't know anyone who refused to buy a cd because they were worried about copy protection. On the other hand, I know a lot of people who use p2p networks rather than buying cds.
Here's a follow-up analysis of the story
Leave it to slashdot to bash SCO and then accept their advertizing money.
" it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source. SCO says, "Whoops!" the Linux community says, "Hooray!" and the English language has a replacement for the phrase, "Hoist by his own petard." "
Unless you can show that SCO ADDED code to the GPL base, they were merely acting on good faith that the code was legitimate when they received it, and redistributed it. If the code they received to redistributed was tainted when they got it, they most likely won't be held accountable for inadvertantly releasing their source as GPL. This is because the source did not originate from them, but from some other unscrupulous source, and they were only passing on what they thought a original source.
You don't have to tell the public at large though what evidence you have.
The Longer it takes to fix the code, the more revenue SCO generates from linux. So of course they're not telling anyone which code has been copied.
The question is which is worse, throwing the disc in a landfill, or driving your car to the video store to return a disc?
It's probably some sort of oxidation process, so a nitrogen ambient will probably keep the disc alive for longer than 48 hrs too, and be a little easier to deal with.
You're right. Stallman's so-called freedom is actually a restriction on freedom. By saying you'd rather have choice than freedom, you're saying you'd rather have real freedom than Stallman's totalitarian version of freedom.
"This seems like it will be about as successful as the whole GIF ordeal a few years back. Where is UNISYS today? Is SCO litigating itself into irrelevance"
Cadence sued Avant! some time ago over stolen code and settled for over $200M (story here). This case seems more like the SCO case if SCO's allegations are true. The good news is that this case will probably drag out in court for a decade, which is probably why SCO doen't want to reveal the offending code. They want to collect royalties for a decade, not have the offending code replaced in a year.
3. ??? should read Sue user of machine if user is a corporation. No question about this one.
Go here to sign a petition to get rid of Governor Gray Davis.
Stallman and co. hadn't spent so much of their time rewriting unix *GNU), instead of working on AI, like they were supposed to be doing. :-)
Wrong. Apple didn't have a preemptive multitasking OS with any sort of useful memory management until BSD, I mean OS X.
I used NT 4 for a few years. Worked great. Never crashed. MacOS at the time would crash every half hour surfing the web. It was complete crap and you're completely clueless.
"I'm not a geek, but I play one on tv."
The RIAA has no obligation to make it easy for you to copy their material. Fair use only means that if you manage to copy something, you can't be sued for it if it falls under fair use. That said, the DMCA goes too far, but their's nothing wrong with them using DRM if they choose.