I... I really don't know what to say about this. I mean, even companies that WANT to pump and dump their stocks are not crazy enough to bully the government before anything is proven in court. and, as for TiVo, don't they use a pre-2.4 kernel?
And McBride has already stated, on numerous occasions, that their problem is with 2.4 and above? And that they claim to own Linux because it is a "dirivative" work?
Oh wait... I get it now! They are claming since the code was found in 2.4 that they OWN Linux and all the copyrights because it is now a derivative work. Yeah, and my farts don't stink.
Well, Im not using what one would call "made for the desktop" Linux distro's, but I am using GNU tools, Linux Kernel 2.4.21, XFree86, and KDE as my desktop PC. And, my opinion is that we have a bit of a way to go before Linux is really ready for the desktop. There are certain quirks that continually bother me, like when programs are loading, the KDE bar will freeze until the application is totally loaded. This is a royal pain in the ass since it limits my ability to switch between applications, especially when loading OpenOffice.org.
On the bright side, I havn't paid Microsoft a cent, and programming a game under Linux has brought SDL to light (before then, I was just using DirectDraw). OpenOffice.org has been very helpful, although somewhat lacking in the UI department. WINE has come along nicley, although I would like to see more DirectX support in the main branch, not just in WineX.
I'm also wondering if there's anything in the DMCA that protects file sharers...
Wait, what would the DMCA have that would protect those who infringe on copyright? The DMCA was made o protect copyright, not help infringe upon them (although, the DMCA does go a bit far). So the short answer is: Nothing. As much as you, or I, or every Slashdot reader would LIKE for what the RIAA is doing to be illegal, the harsh reality is that it's not: they're defending what is legally theirs. This isn't up the the artists, or the file-sharing service (who, FYI, has done everything in its power to avoid the RIAA), it's up to the holder of the copyright. And, as terrible as it sounds, 99% of the songs belong to the label, not the artist.
While it sounds like they are acting as a police force, you must read and understand copyright laws. Yes, they are complex, but one overwhelming fact is that the copyright holder must enforce their copyright. Not the government or any govnerment body - and that's what the RIAA is doing: protecting their copyright.Also, I want to point something else out: Pirate and File Sharer. Both are media spins. you say "file sharer" as if they are doing a service, while the RIAA says they are pirates who deserve prison time. I say you're both wrong. They are in violation of copyright law, no more, no less.
As much as you would like to think that these people are doing a service, they, in the eyes of a business, are an overwhelming threat. NO matter what you, or I think, every business - not just the RIAA - is going to go after these people with their dogs of war.
Personally, I think Peer-to-Peer networks can be a huge advantage for businesses, yet they refuse to "think outside the box." However, if you look at this as "just the facts" you'll realize that the RIAA is fully within their right to prosecute these people.
The problem is that Microsoft, being as influential as it is, doesn't allow "free market" in certain enviornments. In a sense, they control the market. So, in a capitalist enviornment, it is more beneficial to have them broken up thus allowing for more competition.
Remeber, having a monopoly is not illegal, having a monopoly and abusing your influence, such as the case of Microsoft, is illegal. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised for the courts to find that Microsoft has "pierced the corporate shield" with all of the tactics and tricks hey use.
I think that if the system administrators of the US government really wanted to get anti-spam legislation passed, they should log as much spam as they should, and add up how much money it cost for those spam to be transferred. This should incude the size of the e-mail itself, the size of the websites they link to, and the size of any images that must be downloaded.
Show that to a couple of senators with the tagline "... of taxpayers money"
Spammers are slightly more evil than Telemarkets. They won't cooperate with a national "do not e-mail" list. In fact, they would probably use it just to spam.
Alright, maybe he is trolling, but I think this deserves a little focus. The RIAA is treating this like business; however, the people who trade files do not look on it as a business, but as a hobby. It's a serious conflict of interest.
Honestly, I think the RIAA is going about this all wrong, and as soon as the lawsuits start, there is going to be a rather large backlash. What else could they do? Well, for one thing, not be so damn afraid of technology.
While the methods Apple used may not have been in the best of intentions and possibly missleading
I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this is Marketing 101. This is misleading - in Apple's favor. What? Did you actually think that they would advertise their machine as being slower? This does not underscore the difficulties benchmarking across platform, this underscaores how people are trained in marketing.
Could somone describe this for me? Exactly what does "plays warcraft 2" mean? Does it use the same files from WC2? Is it a direct clone of WC2?
If it uses the same files as WC2, well, there might be a problem, but I can only see one if they were distributing those files, or using those graphics.
Now, if it's a full clone, then they should check out the Hasbro vs. John Doe. Hasbro sued a crapload of indie game develoeprs because they made games similar to Atari games.
But saying that the name is too similar . . . I have to disagree. didn't we already go through that with Windows vs. Lindows?
While the business side of me says "maybe" the slashdot side of me says this is an RIAA/MPAA move. It's pretty clear that Blizzards parent company is NOT kosher with the idea of fanworks. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they had Sierra go after the Space Quest 7 fangame, or the many AGI/SCI projects out there.
Of course, if that happens, then, well, I think people should kick up some shit.
I think SCO is putting this out of context. I believe that the engineer who brought up the copyright infringment question was asking what to do if they found one, and if Linux specifically looks for them. Not that he (the engineer) found one and that Linux needed a huge restructuring.
If that is the case (and I'm an idiot witht he IQ of a rock, so don't go beleived every word I say), then SCO is really barking up the wrong tree. Linus simply stated hat hey, he's not a lawyer and not the copyright holder, and neither are the kernel engineers. If something isn't kosher, the thousands of Kernel hackers will come up with a new solution.
That still doesn't dismiss the fact that Cohen stole the domain and ruined the business. It just means that VeriSign can be sued. You're missing the fact that what Cohen did was not only immoral, but it was illegal and he is responsible for the damages he caused.
While he defrauded VeriSign, sex.com was a legitimate business, bringing in $500,000/month in advertising revenue alone. He, literally, destroyed a business. You go after both VeriSign and him, not just VeriSign.
On one hand, this may be a good thing. spammers are known to be some very crafty thieves. They can hide their trails very well; however, once there the slightest inkling that there is something wrong, they can very easily hide their tracks.
This may be a good thing, since it may give the FTC power to actually enforce regulations on spam.
On the other hand, this may be just a way for the FTC to say "hey, we're doing something about it, but it's a secret," and leave it as no more than a simple PR stunt.
1) I belive VAT was charged at customs, and not on the actual business. I think. It's confusing, especially for a small business run by one person;)
2) Unfair trade? *shrugs* Personally, I have never, and will never, sell to EU members. They treat me, as an American, like shit, and I treat them like shit. It's a weird sort of balance. They hate me because of my government, and I hate them because of theirs. And before you say anything about expansion: I'm perfectly happy having a small business and living out my life in a decent house in a decent neighborhood, s'long as I can have my tech toys.
My biggest problem with this VAT thing is: how do they plan on collecting it from smaller retailers?
But keeping track of 15 different VAT rates isn't that huge of a problem. After all, many multi-state businesses (Sears, Macys, ect . ..) have to deal with 47(?) different state taxes. I think it's 47. I could never keep track of the states that didn't have sales tax. Anyway, it is important to know that the taxes are quite different, and fluctuating (NY just increased its sales tax to 8.65%). If you overcharge somone on sales tax, it's a crime. If you undercharge somone, then you have to absorb the loss.
Yes, it's not currently true for an e-business in the US, but it may be, some day, and that's a hell of a lot worse than just 15 different VAT rates.
In any case, yes, I did think about that, but it's really funnier if I mount it from windows98 to linux. I mean, hey, most linux distro's come with the BSd games, but windows? Pfeh, Hearts. whoopdi-fucking-do.
This is a classic case of where personal, common sense, meets the business world . ..
We're just talking about distributing games for a platform that's been end-of-life for many years. There's no financial loss involved and, due to the interest of the retro-gaming community, it could work out to the publishers' financial benefit.
The problem is that there is a financial loss, in the eys of the business world. Even if the product is EOL, there are still some people out there that want to buy it. If the company in question kept producing them, would the person buy it? Maybe, maybe not. But if the person were to buy it, then the copy they downloaded constitutes a loss. It's a minor loss, but it is still considered a loss.
Also, because of the anal nature of the legal department of most companies, they would NEVER release the copyright. They would not even release a carefully worded license agreement.
Finally, companies don't want to deal with the technical issues of using older games on an emulator, or even a really old version of the platform it was created for. Mainly because they don't want to hire more staff, but also because they don't want to retrain their current staff to handle out of date games. Imagine a tech support person trying to help the average computer user with a beta copy of an emulator:
User: "Why does Emulator XYZ crash when I load this?"
Tech: "Uh, I dunno. what version are you using?"
User: "XYZb1029.76.38923773.5"
Tech: "Oh, that's because it's beta. Wait until a final release."
It's a very very ugly situation, one where the business entity's interests are in direct conflict with the public's.
Slashdot Mirror
And McBride has already stated, on numerous occasions, that their problem is with 2.4 and above? And that they claim to own Linux because it is a "dirivative" work?
Oh wait
Maybe they took a bad bong hit or something?
--LordKaT
On the bright side, I havn't paid Microsoft a cent, and programming a game under Linux has brought SDL to light (before then, I was just using DirectDraw). OpenOffice.org has been very helpful, although somewhat lacking in the UI department. WINE has come along nicley, although I would like to see more DirectX support in the main branch, not just in WineX.
--LordKaT
Wait, what would the DMCA have that would protect those who infringe on copyright? The DMCA was made o protect copyright, not help infringe upon them (although, the DMCA does go a bit far). So the short answer is: Nothing. As much as you, or I, or every Slashdot reader would LIKE for what the RIAA is doing to be illegal, the harsh reality is that it's not: they're defending what is legally theirs. This isn't up the the artists, or the file-sharing service (who, FYI, has done everything in its power to avoid the RIAA), it's up to the holder of the copyright. And, as terrible as it sounds, 99% of the songs belong to the label, not the artist.
While it sounds like they are acting as a police force, you must read and understand copyright laws. Yes, they are complex, but one overwhelming fact is that the copyright holder must enforce their copyright. Not the government or any govnerment body - and that's what the RIAA is doing: protecting their copyright.Also, I want to point something else out: Pirate and File Sharer. Both are media spins. you say "file sharer" as if they are doing a service, while the RIAA says they are pirates who deserve prison time. I say you're both wrong. They are in violation of copyright law, no more, no less.
As much as you would like to think that these people are doing a service, they, in the eyes of a business, are an overwhelming threat. NO matter what you, or I think, every business - not just the RIAA - is going to go after these people with their dogs of war.
Personally, I think Peer-to-Peer networks can be a huge advantage for businesses, yet they refuse to "think outside the box." However, if you look at this as "just the facts" you'll realize that the RIAA is fully within their right to prosecute these people.
--LordKaT
Remeber, having a monopoly is not illegal, having a monopoly and abusing your influence, such as the case of Microsoft, is illegal. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised for the courts to find that Microsoft has "pierced the corporate shield" with all of the tactics and tricks hey use.
Then again, the republicans are in power ... ;/
--LordKaT
Show that to a couple of senators with the tagline "... of taxpayers money"
--LordKaT
Spammers are slightly more evil than Telemarkets. They won't cooperate with a national "do not e-mail" list. In fact, they would probably use it just to spam.
--LordKaT
Alright, maybe he is trolling, but I think this deserves a little focus. The RIAA is treating this like business; however, the people who trade files do not look on it as a business, but as a hobby. It's a serious conflict of interest.
Honestly, I think the RIAA is going about this all wrong, and as soon as the lawsuits start, there is going to be a rather large backlash. What else could they do? Well, for one thing, not be so damn afraid of technology.
--LordKaT
I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this is Marketing 101. This is misleading - in Apple's favor. What? Did you actually think that they would advertise their machine as being slower? This does not underscore the difficulties benchmarking across platform, this underscaores how people are trained in marketing.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
If it uses the same files as WC2, well, there might be a problem, but I can only see one if they were distributing those files, or using those graphics.
Now, if it's a full clone, then they should check out the Hasbro vs. John Doe. Hasbro sued a crapload of indie game develoeprs because they made games similar to Atari games.
But saying that the name is too similar . . . I have to disagree. didn't we already go through that with Windows vs. Lindows?
While the business side of me says "maybe" the slashdot side of me says this is an RIAA/MPAA move. It's pretty clear that Blizzards parent company is NOT kosher with the idea of fanworks. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they had Sierra go after the Space Quest 7 fangame, or the many AGI/SCI projects out there.
Of course, if that happens, then, well, I think people should kick up some shit.
--LordKaT
If that is the case (and I'm an idiot witht he IQ of a rock, so don't go beleived every word I say), then SCO is really barking up the wrong tree. Linus simply stated hat hey, he's not a lawyer and not the copyright holder, and neither are the kernel engineers. If something isn't kosher, the thousands of Kernel hackers will come up with a new solution.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
This may be a good thing, since it may give the FTC power to actually enforce regulations on spam.
On the other hand, this may be just a way for the FTC to say "hey, we're doing something about it, but it's a secret," and leave it as no more than a simple PR stunt.
--LordKaT
2) Unfair trade? *shrugs* Personally, I have never, and will never, sell to EU members. They treat me, as an American, like shit, and I treat them like shit. It's a weird sort of balance. They hate me because of my government, and I hate them because of theirs. And before you say anything about expansion: I'm perfectly happy having a small business and living out my life in a decent house in a decent neighborhood, s'long as I can have my tech toys.
My biggest problem with this VAT thing is: how do they plan on collecting it from smaller retailers?
But keeping track of 15 different VAT rates isn't that huge of a problem. After all, many multi-state businesses (Sears, Macys, ect . . .) have to deal with 47(?) different state taxes. I think it's 47. I could never keep track of the states that didn't have sales tax. Anyway, it is important to know that the taxes are quite different, and fluctuating (NY just increased its sales tax to 8.65%). If you overcharge somone on sales tax, it's a crime. If you undercharge somone, then you have to absorb the loss.
Yes, it's not currently true for an e-business in the US, but it may be, some day, and that's a hell of a lot worse than just 15 different VAT rates.
--LordKaT
Considering the /. crowd, I'm surprised this wasen't modded up +5 Insightful ;)
--LordKaT
In any case, yes, I did think about that, but it's really funnier if I mount it from windows98 to linux. I mean, hey, most linux distro's come with the BSd games, but windows? Pfeh, Hearts. whoopdi-fucking-do.
Woohoo! Now I can mount my linux system from the windows 98 network at my college and play Adventure! w00t! --LordKaT
Wouldn't your idea fail since if you spoof the source address on the client, then the host sends it to the spoofed address?
Or am I forgetting some basic networking rule?
--LordKaT
We're just talking about distributing games for a platform that's been end-of-life for many years. There's no financial loss involved and, due to the interest of the retro-gaming community, it could work out to the publishers' financial benefit.
The problem is that there is a financial loss, in the eys of the business world. Even if the product is EOL, there are still some people out there that want to buy it. If the company in question kept producing them, would the person buy it? Maybe, maybe not. But if the person were to buy it, then the copy they downloaded constitutes a loss. It's a minor loss, but it is still considered a loss.
Also, because of the anal nature of the legal department of most companies, they would NEVER release the copyright. They would not even release a carefully worded license agreement.
Finally, companies don't want to deal with the technical issues of using older games on an emulator, or even a really old version of the platform it was created for. Mainly because they don't want to hire more staff, but also because they don't want to retrain their current staff to handle out of date games. Imagine a tech support person trying to help the average computer user with a beta copy of an emulator:
User: "Why does Emulator XYZ crash when I load this?"
Tech: "Uh, I dunno. what version are you using?"
User: "XYZb1029.76.38923773.5"
Tech: "Oh, that's because it's beta. Wait until a final release."
It's a very very ugly situation, one where the business entity's interests are in direct conflict with the public's.
It's unfortunate, but it's all too common.
--LordKaT
Laconia Bums Inc. A plug for my site, because I'm just that cool.
I was talking about the ZDNet article, dagnabit!
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
I'm Prime Minister!
No! I am!
No, No! It's my turn!
--LordKaT