"Vista Beta 2asks you for confirmation of nearly everything you can possible do on the computer."
I fixed that for you.:p Regarding all of your complaints, this is what betas are for. To get user feedback and address the problems, and obviously Microsoft is doing just that.
"We fixed deleting Desktop Icons in the current RC1 builds. Unfortunately, the Beta 2 build still has the (many) step user experience. It is an interesting dilemma on how ISVs should write their installers to place icons though. The advantage to putting the icon on the all-users desktop is that any NEW user will also get the icon. We (windows) need to add some sort of "hide" technology to have it both ways... and we haven't done that yet."
Four points: 1. According to the article, "Adobe wants Microsoft to remove the feature and offer Adobe's technology separately for a fee. Microsoft has agreed to remove the feature, but is unwilling to charge for it, the Journal reported." This makes no sense to me. How can Adobe sue because Microsoft refuses to charge extra for a feature that they have agreed to remove?
2. If the story is true in any way, shape, or form, Adobe is full of crap. Either they opened pdf spec or they didn't. If they opened it then they were taking a calculated risk that they would make more money by opening the spec than by keeping it closed. The gambled that opening the spec for use by others would seed the market with pdf documents, further popularizing the format, while Adobe would make money in the pdf-editing software market by competing on features. So, they made the decision to compete, not based on format lock-in, but on pdf-editing features. They can't now whine about it. If the spec is truly "open" then it's "open" for anyone to use. If not, then sorry, it's not truly "open".
3. If the story is true, then note that Adobe is threatening suing in Europe rather than the US. Is that because they know that their case wouldn't hold up in a US court, and they have to go to a venue that's predisposed to rule against MS no matter what the grounds of the case are? Maybe Microsoft will remove pdf-export only in Europe. lol
4. I wonder what MA's take is on this. If the story is true, then pdf is "open" in theory, but not in practice. MA gave pdf its blessing based on the idea that pdf is a format that is open for anyone to use. If this isn't really the case, then look for MA to revoke its blessing, lest MA be branded as hypocrites.
"Until MS gets serious about making their own software and apps created with the default settings in their dev tools work in non-privileged accounts and provide a VM or other such accommodation for legacy applications, I don't see a lot of hope for this. And you're right, it won't do much for regular user security except convince people that security is the opposite of usability. This poorly designed interface will just annoy most people."
Microsoft is doing just that. Legacy apps that do foolish things like write to the Programs directory rather than the users AppData directory, or write to portions of the registry outside of HKEY_CURRENT_USER, will be able to do so under Vista, but in actuality, they'll be writing to a virtual environment.
As for Microsoft's apps, I think almost all of them work in non-admin accounts (if not all).
As for the UI "annoying most people", it annoys Mac users too, but the tech media and many slashdotters have held Mac OSX's model up as the epitome of security and the example that Microsoft should follow, so blame Apple and the media and slashdotters that fawn over every move that Apple makes.:p
You're dreaming if you think Microsoft's crippling Vista's ability to play protected HD-DVDs and BR discs would make content creators remove DRM from those discs. The overwhelming majority of disc play occurs in dedicated players (and the upcoming PS3), which will have DRM functionality. The content creators wouldn't care in the least if Vista removed DRM functionality and thus couldn't play those discs. Indeed, the content creators' wet dream is to prevent PC-playback at all, since that's where piracy occurs.
So rather than bitch at Microsoft all the time, how bitching at the content creators who add the DRM and the dvd player manufacturers which will be used for 90% of disc playback, and Sony whose PS3 will be used for 90% of BR playback (Sony is also the distributor of 1/3 of BR discs).
Microsoft is not the problem here. Microsoft's DRM is not what's being used for these discs. And Microsoft is NOT going to intentionally cripple Vista's ability to play hi-def discs as part of a political crusade. Microsoft wants to sell media centers, and wants them to be able to play hi-def discs, whether you like it or not. Secondly, if Microsoft were to cripple Vista's ability to play hi-def dvds, that would just be one more mark against it when compared to Mac OSX (upcoming OSX will have DRM as well, particularly since Apple is a member of BDA (BR's consortium)).
Your anger is misplaced (and this is even indicated by your post).
That stuff is required to play protected media (like HD-DVDs and BR discs). Are you saying Microsoft should remove the ability to play such discs? How does that help the user?
Unprotected media will play just the same as it always has.
"People who don't backup/home every night deserve everything they get."
But even if you did backup every night, what if some malware corrupted some documents in/home? Maybe changed some vital data in a spreadsheet? Maybe the change would be too subtle to notice, and you're spreadsheet would start producing incorrect calculations due to the incorrect data, unbeknownst to you. And when you did your nightly backup, guess what, the corrupted spreadsheet gets backed up as well, so now your backup store is corrupt.
Is this beta going to define Windows for the NEXT six years?
I've read that once Vista is released, Microsoft is going to adopt Apple's OS release strategy of incremental updates every 12-18 months (but hopefully not at $130-a-pop!;)).
There's still no WinFS, promised back in '96.
WinFS is still being worked on. Beta 2 is going to be released this June, and they're working on "Project Orange", supposedly a "killer app" for WinFS. Looks like WinFS will be officially released in fall 2007 (I'm guessing as part of Vista SP1, and it'll also be made available for XP, I believe). And you should be very glad that they didn't release it in 1996 or even 2005, as there have been major improvements in the architecture since then.
Things that can be fixed "at the system level" will continue to be with free updates, just as your Apple does. But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc). These are the kinds of things that anti-virus/anti-spyware is meant to address.
What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?
What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?
BTW, Microsoft will continue to patch OS flaws for free with Windows Update. Anti-malware software is meant to stop malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws.
"Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.
Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected."
It doesn't mean that at all. Vista is the "fix" in that the default account will be non-admin. Hell, IE will run with even less priveleges and malware attacking IE can only do damage to a temp directory, as it won't be allowed access to any files outside of that directory without explicit user consent. What else do you want? A better question, what does Linux to better in this regard?
"Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you have a rule setup)"
Windows already has a Firewall. The OneCare version improves on it by protecting outgoing connections (as well as incoming). And no, you don't need to connect to OneCare to get the Firewall to work. Don't be silly.
"Performance tune-up - with NTFS?, ha. The page file will be bloated being that you'll need 1 gig to run the OS (512 is the minimum as we know how that goes). I read that as "let me check to see if your installed software meets our license requirements." How much you want to bet that defrag isn't included in the tune-up? Dies Windows still require defragging?"
You continue do show your ignornace. Defragging is part of the tune-up. The rest of your comment is just typical anti-MS slashdot drivel.
"Data backup and restore - where is it going to backup to? Are there going to be systems uploading gigs of videos, pictures, and music to a Microsoft remote location hogging the bandwidth of the internet or will the backup be local so that when the hard drive crashes, the backup protection the customers are paying for doesn't work?"
More ignorance (but at least you somewhat admit it, but in a way that condemns Microsoft out of sheer ignorance). The backup medium is optical discs and external hardrives. If an external harddrive is used, then the backup can be scheduled to run automatically. (Symantec or McAfee (I forget which) is going to also offer backups, including the ability to backup 1GB of data to an online location.)
If you really care about what OneCare does (you ostensibly do by posing your questions, but you likely don't and were posing them just to bash) see http://www.windowsonecare.com/.
The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.
It's funny that slashdotters like to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, more "tech-savvy" than everyone else, yet they make such idiotic statements like the above with regularity. And some idiot modded the above statement as "Insightful", further damning slashdot's rep. LOL
Spyware generally doesn't rely on OS insecurity. Viruses generally don't rely on such either. Trojan horses almost never rely on OS insecurity. For those that do rely on OS insecurity, Microsoft will continue patching OS insecurity for free with Windows Update (just as Apple does for Macs). For malware that doesn't rely on OS insecurity, anti-malware software (such as Microsoft's OneCare offering) exists.
If Microsoft weren't going to continue patching OS flaws for free via Windows Update, you might have a point. But since that's not the case, you don't.
This anti-malware software is designed to thwart malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws. Malware that does rely on such flaws will continue to be addressed through free patches via Windows Update.
You miss the point. Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update. Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).
The problem is that you'd still be investing millions of dollars/man-hours to create this engine, and giving it away for free to your competitors. Sure, everyone can then create their own art/story/content, but why give should my competitors get to use an engine that I spent much dollars/man-hours creating, free of charge?
I really think Epic has a better understanding of this industry than random slashdotters or RMS. Epic spend years creating their Unreal 3.0 engine, and guess what, the *license* it to others for a *fee* (and the license may even include the source, but not for redistribution to others). I'm sorry, but open source is not amenable to creating things like Halo, Half-Life, World of Warcraft, etc. Stick with Tux Racer trivialities.
A sidenote: I've worked on software for years, and the "art" (icons, pictures, sounds, etc) is considered part of the "source". So why do you separate the "art" from the "source code"? You say that devs can GPL the engine but keep the "art" 'closed'. Why not "GPL" the art as well? Seems that the true OSS advocate would advocate "open sourcing" the art/story/content, letting the "community" improve it, and reaping the benefits of the community's effort. That you concede that the art should remain 'closed', tacitly admits a flaw in the GPL model (as far as money-making is concerned).
Doesn't matter whether it's a loss or not. Can't you get it through your head that using something without authorization (e.g. using something made available for purchase without actually purchasing it) is wrong? Is is so hard to understand? Did your parents instill you with any values at all? Why are you shifting the burden to the creator to prove that there's a loss, and if he fails to do so (to your satisfaction), then it's fine and dandy to make use of his creation without payment?
"My point is some companies HAVE to pirate software to do business."
Any company that HAS to pirate to do business should get out of business. It's funny, slashdotters routinely condemn Microsoft as a "criminal" organization (despite that they've been convicted nor even accused of any "crime" (civil suits are not criminal matters)), yet you guys defend companies that base their business on using pirated software, which is indeeed criminal behavior.
When somebody steals from my property, I end having less than I had before, when somebody does illegal copying from my property I end having exactly as much as I had before.
You don't have as much as you did before, because you no longer have as high a potential to sell to the "thief" as you previously did.
Secondly, if Company A steals trade secrets from Company B, is it not stealing even though Company B still has the information?
Is sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie for free not stealing (of a sort) eventhough the theater "has as much as it had before" (and for this example, we'll assume that the theater wasn't sold out, so no, it's not the occupation of a seat that is the stolen item, but the viewing of the movie itself).
There are many more examples of stealing where the victim hasn't lost a tangible item.
"If I spend five years building up my lawn to look very pretty, do I get to charge all my neighbors for any benefit they might get out of it? My point isn't that they're straight analogies; it's that you can't point at hard work, no matter how many years it is, as a basis for why something has to be paid by others."
Talk about a specious argument. The point of the poster is that if someone spends hard work providing something to the public for purchase then to take that item without payment is basically giving the middle finger to the creator, slapping him in the face, and completely disregarding the hard work that was put toward providing something to the public for purchase.
Did you provide your lawn to the public view for purchase? No? Then stop with the sophistry. Good grief.
Slashdot isn't one person, but you're in complete denial to claim that Slashdot group-think doesn't exist. If you're offended by the term "group-think", then how about "general consensus"?
The general consensus of Slashdot is that "piracy isn't all that bad", and many (maybe most) Slashdotters go so far as to claim "piracy is good for society".
Speaking of StarTrek replicators, I recall a slashdotter a few months ago saying that the way it works in Startrek is that the creator of an item gets auto-paid for each replication. The example given was that the designer of a popular shoe actually gets payment for each replication of a pair of the shoes.
Slashdot Mirror
"Vista Beta 2asks you for confirmation of nearly everything you can possible do on the computer."
:p
I fixed that for you.
Regarding all of your complaints, this is what betas are for. To get user feedback and address the problems, and obviously Microsoft is doing just that.
Four points:
1. According to the article, "Adobe wants Microsoft to remove the feature and offer Adobe's technology separately for a fee. Microsoft has agreed to remove the feature, but is unwilling to charge for it, the Journal reported." This makes no sense to me. How can Adobe sue because Microsoft refuses to charge extra for a feature that they have agreed to remove?
2. If the story is true in any way, shape, or form, Adobe is full of crap. Either they opened pdf spec or they didn't. If they opened it then they were taking a calculated risk that they would make more money by opening the spec than by keeping it closed. The gambled that opening the spec for use by others would seed the market with pdf documents, further popularizing the format, while Adobe would make money in the pdf-editing software market by competing on features. So, they made the decision to compete, not based on format lock-in, but on pdf-editing features. They can't now whine about it. If the spec is truly "open" then it's "open" for anyone to use. If not, then sorry, it's not truly "open".
3. If the story is true, then note that Adobe is threatening suing in Europe rather than the US. Is that because they know that their case wouldn't hold up in a US court, and they have to go to a venue that's predisposed to rule against MS no matter what the grounds of the case are? Maybe Microsoft will remove pdf-export only in Europe. lol
4. I wonder what MA's take is on this. If the story is true, then pdf is "open" in theory, but not in practice. MA gave pdf its blessing based on the idea that pdf is a format that is open for anyone to use. If this isn't really the case, then look for MA to revoke its blessing, lest MA be branded as hypocrites.
PDF is an open standard.
Seems that it's "open" in theory, but not "open" in practice, if Adobe reserves the right to sue anyone that they don't want to use it.
What they can't do is bundle it with their monopoly OS
Office is not bundled with "their monopoly OS", so what's that got to do with it?
"Until MS gets serious about making their own software and apps created with the default settings in their dev tools work in non-privileged accounts and provide a VM or other such accommodation for legacy applications, I don't see a lot of hope for this. And you're right, it won't do much for regular user security except convince people that security is the opposite of usability. This poorly designed interface will just annoy most people."
:p
Microsoft is doing just that.
Legacy apps that do foolish things like write to the Programs directory rather than the users AppData directory, or write to portions of the registry outside of HKEY_CURRENT_USER, will be able to do so under Vista, but in actuality, they'll be writing to a virtual environment.
As for Microsoft's apps, I think almost all of them work in non-admin accounts (if not all).
As for the UI "annoying most people", it annoys Mac users too, but the tech media and many slashdotters have held Mac OSX's model up as the epitome of security and the example that Microsoft should follow, so blame Apple and the media and slashdotters that fawn over every move that Apple makes.
You're dreaming if you think Microsoft's crippling Vista's ability to play protected HD-DVDs and BR discs would make content creators remove DRM from those discs. The overwhelming majority of disc play occurs in dedicated players (and the upcoming PS3), which will have DRM functionality. The content creators wouldn't care in the least if Vista removed DRM functionality and thus couldn't play those discs. Indeed, the content creators' wet dream is to prevent PC-playback at all, since that's where piracy occurs.
So rather than bitch at Microsoft all the time, how bitching at the content creators who add the DRM and the dvd player manufacturers which will be used for 90% of disc playback, and Sony whose PS3 will be used for 90% of BR playback (Sony is also the distributor of 1/3 of BR discs).
Microsoft is not the problem here. Microsoft's DRM is not what's being used for these discs. And Microsoft is NOT going to intentionally cripple Vista's ability to play hi-def discs as part of a political crusade. Microsoft wants to sell media centers, and wants them to be able to play hi-def discs, whether you like it or not. Secondly, if Microsoft were to cripple Vista's ability to play hi-def dvds, that would just be one more mark against it when compared to Mac OSX (upcoming OSX will have DRM as well, particularly since Apple is a member of BDA (BR's consortium)).
Your anger is misplaced (and this is even indicated by your post).
That stuff is required to play protected media (like HD-DVDs and BR discs). Are you saying Microsoft should remove the ability to play such discs? How does that help the user?
Unprotected media will play just the same as it always has.
I don't see what the problem is.
"People who don't backup /home every night deserve everything they get."
/home? Maybe changed some vital data in a spreadsheet? Maybe the change would be too subtle to notice, and you're spreadsheet would start producing incorrect calculations due to the incorrect data, unbeknownst to you. And when you did your nightly backup, guess what, the corrupted spreadsheet gets backed up as well, so now your backup store is corrupt.
But even if you did backup every night, what if some malware corrupted some documents in
Yes, people always like to talk of how Microsoft is "dying", but seems that they're always hiring.
Is this beta going to define Windows for the NEXT six years?
;)).
I've read that once Vista is released, Microsoft is going to adopt Apple's OS release strategy of incremental updates every 12-18 months (but hopefully not at $130-a-pop!
There's still no WinFS, promised back in '96.
WinFS is still being worked on. Beta 2 is going to be released this June, and they're working on "Project Orange", supposedly a "killer app" for WinFS. Looks like WinFS will be officially released in fall 2007 (I'm guessing as part of Vista SP1, and it'll also be made available for XP, I believe). And you should be very glad that they didn't release it in 1996 or even 2005, as there have been major improvements in the architecture since then.
Things that can be fixed "at the system level" will continue to be with free updates, just as your Apple does. But most malware nowadays doesn't rely on OS flaws, but rather user foolishness (downloading trojans from warez sites or P2P, clicking on malware email attachments, etc). These are the kinds of things that anti-virus/anti-spyware is meant to address.
What incentive does MS have to provide a secure OS if they are deriving revenue from the very faults they created?
What incentive does Red Hat have to make an easy-to-use OS if they are deriving revenue from the very difficulty of the OS (i.e. making money on support)?
BTW, Microsoft will continue to patch OS flaws for free with Windows Update. Anti-malware software is meant to stop malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws.
Well, automobile manufacturers have charged extra for things like air bags (particularly side air bags), anti-theft systems, etc.
"Antivirus - we'll keep the current ecosystem status quo. Viruses will be allowed to run rampant as soon as users click the 5 dialog boxes that will allow the virus to install itself as a service. OneCare will remove the threat for you.
Antispyware - means that we won't fix our OS and will allow 3rd parties to install key logging software on your system. With our OneCare package, you will be protected."
It doesn't mean that at all. Vista is the "fix" in that the default account will be non-admin. Hell, IE will run with even less priveleges and malware attacking IE can only do damage to a temp directory, as it won't be allowed access to any files outside of that directory without explicit user consent. What else do you want? A better question, what does Linux to better in this regard?
"Firewall - if you have to remotely connect to OneCare, then the firewall isn't working is it? (Unless you have a rule setup)"
Windows already has a Firewall. The OneCare version improves on it by protecting outgoing connections (as well as incoming). And no, you don't need to connect to OneCare to get the Firewall to work. Don't be silly.
"Performance tune-up - with NTFS?, ha. The page file will be bloated being that you'll need 1 gig to run the OS (512 is the minimum as we know how that goes). I read that as "let me check to see if your installed software meets our license requirements." How much you want to bet that defrag isn't included in the tune-up? Dies Windows still require defragging?"
You continue do show your ignornace. Defragging is part of the tune-up. The rest of your comment is just typical anti-MS slashdot drivel.
"Data backup and restore - where is it going to backup to? Are there going to be systems uploading gigs of videos, pictures, and music to a Microsoft remote location hogging the bandwidth of the internet or will the backup be local so that when the hard drive crashes, the backup protection the customers are paying for doesn't work?"
More ignorance (but at least you somewhat admit it, but in a way that condemns Microsoft out of sheer ignorance). The backup medium is optical discs and external hardrives. If an external harddrive is used, then the backup can be scheduled to run automatically. (Symantec or McAfee (I forget which) is going to also offer backups, including the ability to backup 1GB of data to an online location.)
If you really care about what OneCare does (you ostensibly do by posing your questions, but you likely don't and were posing them just to bash) see http://www.windowsonecare.com/.
The point is, if the OS was secure in the first place, antivirus/antispyware wouldn't be needed.
It's funny that slashdotters like to think of themselves as smarter than everyone else, more "tech-savvy" than everyone else, yet they make such idiotic statements like the above with regularity. And some idiot modded the above statement as "Insightful", further damning slashdot's rep. LOL
Spyware generally doesn't rely on OS insecurity.
Viruses generally don't rely on such either.
Trojan horses almost never rely on OS insecurity.
For those that do rely on OS insecurity, Microsoft will continue patching OS insecurity for free with Windows Update (just as Apple does for Macs). For malware that doesn't rely on OS insecurity, anti-malware software (such as Microsoft's OneCare offering) exists.
If Microsoft weren't going to continue patching OS flaws for free via Windows Update, you might have a point. But since that's not the case, you don't.
This anti-malware software is designed to thwart malware that doesn't rely on OS flaws. Malware that does rely on such flaws will continue to be addressed through free patches via Windows Update.
You miss the point.
Microsoft is still fixing real "OS security problems" for free via Windows Update.
Anti-malware (e.g. spyware, viruses, etc) is designed to thwart malware that doesn't necessarily rely on OS security problems (which, I repeat, will continue to be fixed for free via Windows Update).
The problem is that you'd still be investing millions of dollars/man-hours to create this engine, and giving it away for free to your competitors. Sure, everyone can then create their own art/story/content, but why give should my competitors get to use an engine that I spent much dollars/man-hours creating, free of charge?
I really think Epic has a better understanding of this industry than random slashdotters or RMS. Epic spend years creating their Unreal 3.0 engine, and guess what, the *license* it to others for a *fee* (and the license may even include the source, but not for redistribution to others). I'm sorry, but open source is not amenable to creating things like Halo, Half-Life, World of Warcraft, etc. Stick with Tux Racer trivialities.
A sidenote:
I've worked on software for years, and the "art" (icons, pictures, sounds, etc) is considered part of the "source". So why do you separate the "art" from the "source code"? You say that devs can GPL the engine but keep the "art" 'closed'. Why not "GPL" the art as well? Seems that the true OSS advocate would advocate "open sourcing" the art/story/content, letting the "community" improve it, and reaping the benefits of the community's effort. That you concede that the art should remain 'closed', tacitly admits a flaw in the GPL model (as far as money-making is concerned).
"Failure to gain is not a loss."
Doesn't matter whether it's a loss or not. Can't you get it through your head that using something without authorization (e.g. using something made available for purchase without actually purchasing it) is wrong? Is is so hard to understand? Did your parents instill you with any values at all? Why are you shifting the burden to the creator to prove that there's a loss, and if he fails to do so (to your satisfaction), then it's fine and dandy to make use of his creation without payment?
"My point is some companies HAVE to pirate software to do business."
Any company that HAS to pirate to do business should get out of business. It's funny, slashdotters routinely condemn Microsoft as a "criminal" organization (despite that they've been convicted nor even accused of any "crime" (civil suits are not criminal matters)), yet you guys defend companies that base their business on using pirated software, which is indeeed criminal behavior.
When somebody steals from my property, I end having less than I had before, when somebody does illegal copying from my property I end having exactly as much as I had before.
You don't have as much as you did before, because you no longer have as high a potential to sell to the "thief" as you previously did.
Secondly, if Company A steals trade secrets from Company B, is it not stealing even though Company B still has the information?
Is sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie for free not stealing (of a sort) eventhough the theater "has as much as it had before" (and for this example, we'll assume that the theater wasn't sold out, so no, it's not the occupation of a seat that is the stolen item, but the viewing of the movie itself).
There are many more examples of stealing where the victim hasn't lost a tangible item.
"If I spend five years building up my lawn to look very pretty, do I get to charge all my neighbors for any benefit they might get out of it? My point isn't that they're straight analogies; it's that you can't point at hard work, no matter how many years it is, as a basis for why something has to be paid by others."
Talk about a specious argument. The point of the poster is that if someone spends hard work providing something to the public for purchase then to take that item without payment is basically giving the middle finger to the creator, slapping him in the face, and completely disregarding the hard work that was put toward providing something to the public for purchase .
Did you provide your lawn to the public view for purchase? No? Then stop with the sophistry. Good grief.
Slashdot isn't one person, but you're in complete denial to claim that Slashdot group-think doesn't exist. If you're offended by the term "group-think", then how about "general consensus"?
The general consensus of Slashdot is that "piracy isn't all that bad", and many (maybe most) Slashdotters go so far as to claim "piracy is good for society".
Replicators are still only in Startrek.
Speaking of StarTrek replicators, I recall a slashdotter a few months ago saying that the way it works in Startrek is that the creator of an item gets auto-paid for each replication. The example given was that the designer of a popular shoe actually gets payment for each replication of a pair of the shoes.