It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...
"What is Mac OS X?"
Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.
Call me paranoid, but is it really that far-fetched a notion that the RIAA may have had considerable direct influence over what was written in that report? The more people write that the RIAA's tactics are working, the more other people will begin to believe that it's true, and it could potentially mean more people being scared away from using P2P to acquire music.
Of course, this says nothing for uncopyrighted, public-domain, or non-RIAA music, but given that the RIAA has had a history of using sledgehammers to swat flies, I daresay they'd be happier just stomping out P2P altogether than they would be with just getting their own music off of it.
Well, I don't know about you, but in my experience I...oh, dammit! Hang on, my kid just IMed me, he needs help with his homework. I'll finish this later. To the living room I go...
This exact story has been posted a few RIAA articles ago. In fact, it's right here.
Interestingly enough, comment was posted anonymously this time, modded as troll. Previously posted non-anonymously, modded funny. Draw what conclusions you will from that, admittedly even I'm not sure what to make of it.
When are people^H^H^H^H^H^Hsoccer moms and technophobic legislators going to realize, VIOLENT GAMES DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. Can they help promote it? Possibly. Can they encourage it? Perhaps. But there is no way a well-adjusted, mentally stable child who happens to enjoy playing Quake or Grand Theft Auto is going to decide "cool, I think I'll go take a nailgun to little Jimmy's head."
How do I know? I'm living proof, and I'm also living --with-- proof. My brother is the kindest, smartest, most low-key 12-year-old I know, and he spends hours on end playing Counter Strike with his friends, making comments along the lines of "Ooh, right between the eyes!" and "Headshot, b*tch!" When he leaves the computer, the game stays there. He doesn't take it with him, and his killer persona is restricted to the online world.
As for me, I scare people when I play Carmageddon. I literally laugh like a madman as I smear pedestrians all over the sidewalks. People have asked me if I'm okay, or need help.
But the same thing applies-it's all an in-game persona, all a character. I would never dream of going around and aiming for pedestrians in my car, trying to knock them to pieces...I love my car too much (kidding, kidding).
Children who have trouble, however, with separating fantasy and reality are the ones at risk, they're the ones who are unable to detach that killer instinct and leave it sitting by the headphones and joystick, and it's simply bad or inattentive parenting that prevents parents from seeing that there were problems to begin with and that perhaps these children in particular should not be playing games as intense as some of those out there today.
What will likely happen is that it'll hang in court forever as arguments over legitimate uses drag out. ISPs will say that there are legitimate uses of P2P protocols, ARIA will argue that intent is still to infringe on copyright, ISPs will counter by demanding proof, ARIA will say there are differences between documented purpose and implied purpose, and it'll just go on and on. And in the end, users will simply use proxies located outside of Australia, or use encrypted transfers.
Difficult to stop a ball this size once it's gotten rolling, and it looks like ARIA might be poised to find that one out the hard way.
"It predicted that continued enforcement of the ban would result in fewer movies, higher prices and decreased quality."
Shouldn't that read, "Fewer movies, higher prices, and decreased quality^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGigli?" Seriously though, maybe fewer movies are a good thing. It seems like the more saturated the movie market gets, the more and more crap we have to weed through looking for something decent. Things like that are why I pick a movie or two that I just have to see, then after that I don't care what I wind up seeing with friends or family on the side. LotR is one of those movies, and they've done a good job.
But higher prices, I'm sorry, are simply not justifiable. Where is all the money from those "Pre-Show Countdowns" going? How many Coke commercials am I going to have to sit through before they'll stop saying things like "it could mean higher prices?" You people are advertising your asses off, how about demanding some money for that instead of hiking prices.
On top of that, exactly what prices will be higher? Production costs? Ticket prices? I assume one would translate into the other, since all things in this business are relative (insert obligatory/. sarcastic comment here).
I, for one, am upset that independent studios are being treated like that, though. The vast majority of films I really enjoy are independent ones, and it seems that they favor substance over style (a rarity in this day and age).
If the big boys are listening-guys, we're not going anywhere. Try taking your time and making good movies that are worth watching. Less saturation=better quality=more satisfied customers who are in turn willing to pay for the quality you provide. Or at least, in theory.
Here's my paranoid thought: The RIAA. They find that suing people gets them quick cash, so they fund a campaign to defend Kazaa, make people feel warm & fuzzy about it. More people move to Kazaa from other networks, because it's "the legitimate one." Well, we know the RIAA has monitoring Kazaa down to a science, and boom...more lawsuits for them.
Or maybe I'm just off my meds. But I suppose it's a possibility.
Macrovision protects your content's quality....Or so they say. But we believe them, right? "Macrovision: Quality Protection" it says. Look, right there on the box. That's all they want to do, just make things better!
I would say no. If you legally purchased it, then you own it, and making duplicate copies for your own purposes, whether you download them, rip them, or pull them out of your ear, falls under your fair-use rights.
Oh, but that's right. This is the age of the RIAA and the DMCA. You have no fair-use rights. Silly me, I forgot.
In my opinion, this is all the more reason to boycott their products. They're obviously benefiting from what we're doing, and yet showing no signs of gratitude for what basically amounts to a service we're providing them. Yes, I know it's of questionable morality to download music, I know some consider it stealing, but...is it any better for them to go and sue 12-year-olds, then turn around and use the statistics from what people are downloading for their own ends? If for no other reason, I'd boycott them for the hypocrisy that they're displaying.
Just this slashbot's $0.02
In other news, chess master Garry Kasparov was arrested under the DMCA for defeating the Fritz mechanism, the codename for the copy-protection technology in TCPA hardware. Full story at eleven.
And what happens when enough people decide they'd rather do without than pay exorbitant prices for "crippled" products? I'm not sure that they would really want to force people to do without. If they had a way to force people to buy the CD whether they wanted to or not, I wager they would.
Of course, the odds of that happening are slim to none, but I LIKE my tinfoil hat, thank you very much.
And then there'll be the Pervy Virus to infect the cars' auto-navigation system. Just imagine when the family is on a trip and winds up at Mistress Melissa's Dungeon of Domination.
"But daddy, I thought we were going to Disneyland!"
Another area most people don't consider is public libraries. As an IT guy in a library, I can vouch for the fact that many are investigating going as far as transitioning staff desktops to Linux distros, especially considering the "security" that will be built into Longhorn. Then there's the Gates Foundation, which provides free computers for libraries to use for the public, provided they agree to MS' licensing terms. Free, yes, but some would say it's just another way to keep the library world saturated with Microsoft products.
"To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS."
Also, IIRC, isn't Microsoft looking to eliminate IE altogether for Longhorn and build Internet browsing directly into the UI itself-similar to how you can type a URL into a Windows Explorer window and be taken from your local directory to a website? If that's not a violation of the antitrust settlement, I don't know what is. If this is true, then we're looking at the elimination of the web browser altogether as a stand-alone application. And if there's no necessity for a web browser, then nobody will think to use one other than Longhorn's integrated browsing.
Of course, I could be mistaken, or my source may have been incorrect, paranoid, or both, and if so I'm sorry, but I wouldn't necessarily put it past them to do something like that. You can already do the same thing with CD burning; it's just that 3rd-party CDRW software offers enough benefits over XP's built-in support that it's hardly anticompetitive to just offer the capability to write some assorted files to a CD.
In IE's case, though, one thing that intrigues me is that it's the least full-featured of browsers out there, yet it's still this popular? Without tabbed browsing, built-in popup control, and some of the other goodies offered by Opera, Mozilla, Safari, and Firebird, it almost seems to me like it's in the same vein as the CD-RW support-bare minimum offered. Perhaps the threat lies in the popularity of web browsing over CD burning?
Slashdot Mirror
So then it's Software vs. Softwear?
It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...
"What is Mac OS X?"
Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.
Of course, this says nothing for uncopyrighted, public-domain, or non-RIAA music, but given that the RIAA has had a history of using sledgehammers to swat flies, I daresay they'd be happier just stomping out P2P altogether than they would be with just getting their own music off of it.
Well, I don't know about you, but in my experience I...oh, dammit! Hang on, my kid just IMed me, he needs help with his homework. I'll finish this later. To the living room I go...
I dread the day goatse gets its own radio station...
This exact story has been posted a few RIAA articles ago. In fact, it's right here.
Interestingly enough, comment was posted anonymously this time, modded as troll. Previously posted non-anonymously, modded funny. Draw what conclusions you will from that, admittedly even I'm not sure what to make of it.
When are people^H^H^H^H^H^Hsoccer moms and technophobic legislators going to realize, VIOLENT GAMES DO NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE. Can they help promote it? Possibly. Can they encourage it? Perhaps. But there is no way a well-adjusted, mentally stable child who happens to enjoy playing Quake or Grand Theft Auto is going to decide "cool, I think I'll go take a nailgun to little Jimmy's head."
How do I know? I'm living proof, and I'm also living --with-- proof. My brother is the kindest, smartest, most low-key 12-year-old I know, and he spends hours on end playing Counter Strike with his friends, making comments along the lines of "Ooh, right between the eyes!" and "Headshot, b*tch!" When he leaves the computer, the game stays there. He doesn't take it with him, and his killer persona is restricted to the online world.
As for me, I scare people when I play Carmageddon. I literally laugh like a madman as I smear pedestrians all over the sidewalks. People have asked me if I'm okay, or need help.
But the same thing applies-it's all an in-game persona, all a character. I would never dream of going around and aiming for pedestrians in my car, trying to knock them to pieces...I love my car too much (kidding, kidding).
Children who have trouble, however, with separating fantasy and reality are the ones at risk, they're the ones who are unable to detach that killer instinct and leave it sitting by the headphones and joystick, and it's simply bad or inattentive parenting that prevents parents from seeing that there were problems to begin with and that perhaps these children in particular should not be playing games as intense as some of those out there today.
Wait a minute, that happens here too.
Can you imagine paying a prostitute that way?
After all, we wouldn't want Tycho and Gabe to find out you got the kid a GBA SP for the holidays...
What will likely happen is that it'll hang in court forever as arguments over legitimate uses drag out. ISPs will say that there are legitimate uses of P2P protocols, ARIA will argue that intent is still to infringe on copyright, ISPs will counter by demanding proof, ARIA will say there are differences between documented purpose and implied purpose, and it'll just go on and on. And in the end, users will simply use proxies located outside of Australia, or use encrypted transfers. Difficult to stop a ball this size once it's gotten rolling, and it looks like ARIA might be poised to find that one out the hard way.
You better not be spamming my RAM!
"It predicted that continued enforcement of the ban would result in fewer movies, higher prices and decreased quality."
/. sarcastic comment here).
Shouldn't that read, "Fewer movies, higher prices, and decreased quality^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGigli?"
Seriously though, maybe fewer movies are a good thing. It seems like the more saturated the movie market gets, the more and more crap we have to weed through looking for something decent. Things like that are why I pick a movie or two that I just have to see, then after that I don't care what I wind up seeing with friends or family on the side. LotR is one of those movies, and they've done a good job.
But higher prices, I'm sorry, are simply not justifiable. Where is all the money from those "Pre-Show Countdowns" going? How many Coke commercials am I going to have to sit through before they'll stop saying things like "it could mean higher prices?" You people are advertising your asses off, how about demanding some money for that instead of hiking prices.
On top of that, exactly what prices will be higher? Production costs? Ticket prices? I assume one would translate into the other, since all things in this business are relative (insert obligatory
I, for one, am upset that independent studios are being treated like that, though. The vast majority of films I really enjoy are independent ones, and it seems that they favor substance over style (a rarity in this day and age).
If the big boys are listening-guys, we're not going anywhere. Try taking your time and making good movies that are worth watching. Less saturation=better quality=more satisfied customers who are in turn willing to pay for the quality you provide. Or at least, in theory.
Here's my paranoid thought: The RIAA. They find that suing people gets them quick cash, so they fund a campaign to defend Kazaa, make people feel warm & fuzzy about it. More people move to Kazaa from other networks, because it's "the legitimate one." Well, we know the RIAA has monitoring Kazaa down to a science, and boom...more lawsuits for them. Or maybe I'm just off my meds. But I suppose it's a possibility.
Macrovision protects your content's quality. ...Or so they say. But we believe them, right? "Macrovision: Quality Protection" it says. Look, right there on the box. That's all they want to do, just make things better!
I would say no. If you legally purchased it, then you own it, and making duplicate copies for your own purposes, whether you download them, rip them, or pull them out of your ear, falls under your fair-use rights.
Oh, but that's right. This is the age of the RIAA and the DMCA. You have no fair-use rights. Silly me, I forgot.
He'll never get his hands on the grail! Never!
In my opinion, this is all the more reason to boycott their products. They're obviously benefiting from what we're doing, and yet showing no signs of gratitude for what basically amounts to a service we're providing them. Yes, I know it's of questionable morality to download music, I know some consider it stealing, but...is it any better for them to go and sue 12-year-olds, then turn around and use the statistics from what people are downloading for their own ends? If for no other reason, I'd boycott them for the hypocrisy that they're displaying. Just this slashbot's $0.02
How's 'bout the re-breather from Real Genius? I'd like to have seen that by now. Girl-watching at the beach will never be the same again.
(insert obligatory nude beach comments here)
In other news, chess master Garry Kasparov was arrested under the DMCA for defeating the Fritz mechanism, the codename for the copy-protection technology in TCPA hardware. Full story at eleven.
And what happens when enough people decide they'd rather do without than pay exorbitant prices for "crippled" products? I'm not sure that they would really want to force people to do without. If they had a way to force people to buy the CD whether they wanted to or not, I wager they would.
Of course, the odds of that happening are slim to none, but I LIKE my tinfoil hat, thank you very much.
Now THAT's what I call a Switchers campaign!
And then there'll be the Pervy Virus to infect the cars' auto-navigation system. Just imagine when the family is on a trip and winds up at Mistress Melissa's Dungeon of Domination.
"But daddy, I thought we were going to Disneyland!"
Another area most people don't consider is public libraries. As an IT guy in a library, I can vouch for the fact that many are investigating going as far as transitioning staff desktops to Linux distros, especially considering the "security" that will be built into Longhorn. Then there's the Gates Foundation, which provides free computers for libraries to use for the public, provided they agree to MS' licensing terms. Free, yes, but some would say it's just another way to keep the library world saturated with Microsoft products.
"To restore competition, the settlement must go further than allowing OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer icon-it must require the separation of middleware code from the OS."
Also, IIRC, isn't Microsoft looking to eliminate IE altogether for Longhorn and build Internet browsing directly into the UI itself-similar to how you can type a URL into a Windows Explorer window and be taken from your local directory to a website? If that's not a violation of the antitrust settlement, I don't know what is. If this is true, then we're looking at the elimination of the web browser altogether as a stand-alone application. And if there's no necessity for a web browser, then nobody will think to use one other than Longhorn's integrated browsing.
Of course, I could be mistaken, or my source may have been incorrect, paranoid, or both, and if so I'm sorry, but I wouldn't necessarily put it past them to do something like that. You can already do the same thing with CD burning; it's just that 3rd-party CDRW software offers enough benefits over XP's built-in support that it's hardly anticompetitive to just offer the capability to write some assorted files to a CD.
In IE's case, though, one thing that intrigues me is that it's the least full-featured of browsers out there, yet it's still this popular? Without tabbed browsing, built-in popup control, and some of the other goodies offered by Opera, Mozilla, Safari, and Firebird, it almost seems to me like it's in the same vein as the CD-RW support-bare minimum offered. Perhaps the threat lies in the popularity of web browsing over CD burning?
First non-anonymous post. w00t. (My very first first post! Wheeeeee!)