The RIAA has no obligation to make their material easy to copy. Just because you can't be sued for fair use copying doesn't mean the RIAA has an obligation to make it easy for you to copy their stuff.
Unlike spam e-mail, p2p files are sought out by people wanting to download them. I should be able to have a file on my pc with any info I want, and whatever file title I want, and have it in a directory that's shared on a p2p network. If someone downloads it, and then sues me because it wasn't construed as a misleading file title, that's a serious erosion of my individual rights. The RIAA members should also have the right to share any files they want, even if they are intentionally misleading, through the same reasoning. It would be ironic if the RIAA were sued for sharing misleading files, but they couldn't identify and sue people actually distributing their copyrighted works illegally, as they've been trying to do in court now for some time, with limited success. Anyway, support of such legislation is a serious erosion of individual rights that should be frowned upon by this community. The courts got it right in letting Morpheus and Grokster off the hook. Let's not take a step backward by restricting what people can put on p2p networks.
"Why should the government protect things which will never enlarge the public domain and take such a toll on the useful arts?"
Because the US is not a communist country. The US govt. protects the rights of individuals. It shouldn't be promoting a social agenda at the expense of individual rights, including the right to own IP.
The tablet PC is more evolutionary than revolutionary. It seems obvious that if you have a portable computer that you're carrying around, i.e. laptop, it would be nice to be able to write on the screen during a meeting to take notes. As the technology becomes cheaper, all laptops will probably have this feature.
Actually, DRM and Palladium provides both freedom and security. I now can send sensitive documents to people I trust with even less chance that a hacker can intercept the unencrypted message at either end if either system is owned by hackers.
That's funny. So now a person needs to decide whether he's more paranoid about MS or the govt. Then again, Linux will eventually support DRM, so you can safeguard yourself against both soon.
Last time I checked, Apple was a firm beilever in DRM. They music files they sell can only be tranferred between 3 machines. It's only a matter of time before Apple hardware also supports this.
"But yet, at the same time, how is this, say, any more secure than a PGP'ed open format document, for instance? Our 'secure' solutions are already here, and all we need is an initiatve to use them in a positive way, and not an anti-competitive manner, such as that M$ is employing."
Wrong. The whole point of Palladium is that if the hardware isn't secure, a hacker on your machine can look through your memory and find unencryted versions of pgp documents or the keys themselves to decrypt them. The anti-DRM people want this ability. That's what they're talking about when they say things like freedom to control your own machine.
This can be true of any MS code, not just DRM related code. They could intentionally slow down any non-MS app they don't like. If you're that paranoid, your only safe option is to use software that you compile yourself from source (must compile the compiler from source too).
The students may have lost in court since they were keeping a database of the illegal songs on THEIR machines and were knowingly allowing people access to this database. Morpheus and Grokster only write software, however. They do not store databases of illegal music and help people find them. That's the distinction between Napster and Morpheus, etc. as well, as far as the courts are concerned.
I went to RPI, and I don't know anyone who used these local search engines for anything other than copying music and movies. If you want course files, you go to the appropriate web site that the prof or TA tells you about. You don't need a search engine.
Wrong. The rich are a minority. They can only buy laws that people don't care about. Look at the tax code in the US. It favors the middle and lower classes. The system of laws is in pretty stable equilibrium since middle class people have the majority of votes.
"Remember that story where microsoft wants to implement "classes" of pcs? Like "This game will only run on Class A or better machines"? This is a start, if only halfway."
What's wrong with classifying pcs? The average person doesn't remember if his pc has a pentium II or a pentium III cpu, much less the clock rate, and has no idea what size hard drive or how much memory are in the pc. So when he wants to buy the latest game, and it says you need x cpu, y memory, z video card, he's clueless as to whether the game will run on his pc. Having a classification would make it much simpler. BTW, there's nothing in the article that says MS will prevent linux from running on this machine.
CmdrTaco should choose his words more carefully
on
Microsoft's Athens PC
·
· Score: 1
"...and locking Linux out of the desktop market."
CmdrTaco should choose his words more carefully. The above statement makes it sound like MS is making sure Linux won't run on this new pc architecture, which was not stated, or even implied in the article. The only statement in the article about Linux mentioned trying to fend off competition from Apple and freely shared software.
In Canada, the govt. regulates drug prices. As a result US drug companies cave in to these anti free market tactics so as not to get bad publicity. Now we find that many of the drugs sold to Canada make it back to the US at reduced prices, undermining the US free market. The US should impose tariffs on drugs sold to Canada to make up for money lost by US drug companies because of socialist Canadian policies. I feel sorry for any company trying to develop life saving drugs in Canada. They're at the mercy of the govt. So much for freedom in Canada.
So you want the US to subsidize failing telcos? That's your idea of an encouraging entity? That's what I'd consider a socialist beuracracy. Let free market decide. The technology is here. It's not like the US has to encourage developing the technology. If people want it, let them pay for it, but don't make taxpayers pay for bandwidth they have already chosen to opt without, and stick with cheaper dial-up access instead.
Nope. For instance, if I own 2 stores in 2 neighborhoods, and price stuff lower than cost in the 2nd store to put competition out of business, while using revenue from the 1st store (that happens to have less competition) to prop up the 2nd store, that's illegal. What IBM is doing isn't much different. Similar cases were made against MS. Antitrust laws are so vaugue they should be repealed. It's hard for a business to even know whether or not they're in violation until charges are brought against them.
RMS's philosophy is based on the idea that individual work is secondary to the good of society. A misguided person could easily misconstrue this as meaning that theft of code is morally correct if it's for the good of society. Anyway, again there's no point in SCO making this claim if they can't back it up with proof. In the end, IBM won't spend money to buy them off without any proof, and they can't win in court without proof. As for point C, it's a lot easier to steal code than write it, so what you pose is a silly arguement. You assume motive for OSS that most would say is untrue. Anyway, calling my arguement silly when all you can do is pose a few questions calls into question your debate skills.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA has no obligation to make their material easy to copy. Just because you can't be sued for fair use copying doesn't mean the RIAA has an obligation to make it easy for you to copy their stuff.
You obviously have no understanding of how DRM technology works. You can't use DRM to control files that didn't originate from you.
Unlike spam e-mail, p2p files are sought out by people wanting to download them. I should be able to have a file on my pc with any info I want, and whatever file title I want, and have it in a directory that's shared on a p2p network. If someone downloads it, and then sues me because it wasn't construed as a misleading file title, that's a serious erosion of my individual rights. The RIAA members should also have the right to share any files they want, even if they are intentionally misleading, through the same reasoning. It would be ironic if the RIAA were sued for sharing misleading files, but they couldn't identify and sue people actually distributing their copyrighted works illegally, as they've been trying to do in court now for some time, with limited success. Anyway, support of such legislation is a serious erosion of individual rights that should be frowned upon by this community. The courts got it right in letting Morpheus and Grokster off the hook. Let's not take a step backward by restricting what people can put on p2p networks.
Sounds like this type of memory will be extremely sensitive to radiation, making single event upsets of stored bits very likely.
"Why should the government protect things which will never enlarge the public domain and take such a toll on the useful arts?"
Because the US is not a communist country. The US govt. protects the rights of individuals. It shouldn't be promoting a social agenda at the expense of individual rights, including the right to own IP.
The tablet PC is more evolutionary than revolutionary. It seems obvious that if you have a portable computer that you're carrying around, i.e. laptop, it would be nice to be able to write on the screen during a meeting to take notes. As the technology becomes cheaper, all laptops will probably have this feature.
Didn't Apache get its name because it was a patched version of some MIT code or something? Sounds like it's had its share of exploits.
Actually, DRM and Palladium provides both freedom and security. I now can send sensitive documents to people I trust with even less chance that a hacker can intercept the unencrypted message at either end if either system is owned by hackers.
That's funny. So now a person needs to decide whether he's more paranoid about MS or the govt. Then again, Linux will eventually support DRM, so you can safeguard yourself against both soon.
"Not to mention the suspicion that very well may come with shunning DRM. "What do you have to hide?", say Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Ashcroft."
Apparently nothing, if you're not using DRM. At least not anything on your computer that a hacker can't get.
Last time I checked, Apple was a firm beilever in DRM. They music files they sell can only be tranferred between 3 machines. It's only a matter of time before Apple hardware also supports this.
"But yet, at the same time, how is this, say, any more secure than a PGP'ed open format document, for instance? Our 'secure' solutions are already here, and all we need is an initiatve to use them in a positive way, and not an anti-competitive manner, such as that M$ is employing."
Wrong. The whole point of Palladium is that if the hardware isn't secure, a hacker on your machine can look through your memory and find unencryted versions of pgp documents or the keys themselves to decrypt them. The anti-DRM people want this ability. That's what they're talking about when they say things like freedom to control your own machine.
This can be true of any MS code, not just DRM related code. They could intentionally slow down any non-MS app they don't like. If you're that paranoid, your only safe option is to use software that you compile yourself from source (must compile the compiler from source too).
The students may have lost in court since they were keeping a database of the illegal songs on THEIR machines and were knowingly allowing people access to this database. Morpheus and Grokster only write software, however. They do not store databases of illegal music and help people find them. That's the distinction between Napster and Morpheus, etc. as well, as far as the courts are concerned.
I went to RPI, and I don't know anyone who used these local search engines for anything other than copying music and movies. If you want course files, you go to the appropriate web site that the prof or TA tells you about. You don't need a search engine.
Wrong. The rich are a minority. They can only buy laws that people don't care about. Look at the tax code in the US. It favors the middle and lower classes. The system of laws is in pretty stable equilibrium since middle class people have the majority of votes.
"Remember that story where microsoft wants to implement "classes" of pcs? Like "This game will only run on Class A or better machines"? This is a start, if only halfway."
What's wrong with classifying pcs? The average person doesn't remember if his pc has a pentium II or a pentium III cpu, much less the clock rate, and has no idea what size hard drive or how much memory are in the pc. So when he wants to buy the latest game, and it says you need x cpu, y memory, z video card, he's clueless as to whether the game will run on his pc. Having a classification would make it much simpler. BTW, there's nothing in the article that says MS will prevent linux from running on this machine.
"...and locking Linux out of the desktop market."
CmdrTaco should choose his words more carefully. The above statement makes it sound like MS is making sure Linux won't run on this new pc architecture, which was not stated, or even implied in the article. The only statement in the article about Linux mentioned trying to fend off competition from Apple and freely shared software.
It doesn't. The article doesn't even claim this new pc architecture will not be able to run Linux.
"Let's hope it torpedoes the RIAA completely."
How does Apple generating revenue for the RIAA "torpedo" them? That's like saying selling more cd's at BestBuy will torpedo the RIAA.
In Canada, the govt. regulates drug prices. As a result US drug companies cave in to these anti free market tactics so as not to get bad publicity. Now we find that many of the drugs sold to Canada make it back to the US at reduced prices, undermining the US free market. The US should impose tariffs on drugs sold to Canada to make up for money lost by US drug companies because of socialist Canadian policies. I feel sorry for any company trying to develop life saving drugs in Canada. They're at the mercy of the govt. So much for freedom in Canada.
So you want the US to subsidize failing telcos? That's your idea of an encouraging entity? That's what I'd consider a socialist beuracracy. Let free market decide. The technology is here. It's not like the US has to encourage developing the technology. If people want it, let them pay for it, but don't make taxpayers pay for bandwidth they have already chosen to opt without, and stick with cheaper dial-up access instead.
Exactly my point. Why should MS be restricted by the govt., but IBM not?
Nope. For instance, if I own 2 stores in 2 neighborhoods, and price stuff lower than cost in the 2nd store to put competition out of business, while using revenue from the 1st store (that happens to have less competition) to prop up the 2nd store, that's illegal. What IBM is doing isn't much different. Similar cases were made against MS. Antitrust laws are so vaugue they should be repealed. It's hard for a business to even know whether or not they're in violation until charges are brought against them.
RMS's philosophy is based on the idea that individual work is secondary to the good of society. A misguided person could easily misconstrue this as meaning that theft of code is morally correct if it's for the good of society. Anyway, again there's no point in SCO making this claim if they can't back it up with proof. In the end, IBM won't spend money to buy them off without any proof, and they can't win in court without proof. As for point C, it's a lot easier to steal code than write it, so what you pose is a silly arguement. You assume motive for OSS that most would say is untrue. Anyway, calling my arguement silly when all you can do is pose a few questions calls into question your debate skills.