Do they really think IBM would not notice and point out to the judge these glaring gaps?
I think that's probably irrelivant. It wouldn't be if your goal was to win. If, however, your goal is just to get rich and maintain stock prices then it doesn't matter. The only important thing to SCO management in that case is that you managed to keep a case going for three years without showing a shred of real evidence.
In the mean time, more and more of McBride's stock options are vested and free to be sold. He's getting paid big bucks for salary and bonuses. Stock prices hover about 4.5x higher than they were when this whole thing started. A bunch of people who owned stock when it was below $1/share made a killing when it hit around $20/share.
I think the issue here is that ISPs and telco's are going to make your access to google slower
I think that part of the requirements for allowing them to set up tiers was that they could not reduce the speed of the lower teir, only increase the speeds for the upper tiers. I think that spotlights a failure of many to understand that bandwidth rates are not static. It won't be too long and even 1Mbps will be considered glacial.
In the end it ammounts to the telcos trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their customers. I suppose you can't fault them too much after all a business is supposed to make a profit. I do, however, fault our lawmakers and FCC for putting business interests ahead of the consumer.
Why are ISPs in many other countries able to offer much better bandwidth for less than most of us in the US pay for 3Mbps/768Kbps?
Nice theory. What happens when your two and only two options for broadband in an area both set up teired plans that cost you 2x as much for the max bandwidth as you currently pay?
That's just spin. Why can't I be referred to as the guy who "knows his stuff and knows how to relax and be comfortable"?
Because the guy(s)/gal(s) doing the interview feel that poor dress and grooming are a sign of a lack of pride in yourself which might carry over into a lack of pride in your work. Or maybe they are just uptight. Or they put a value on something superficial like how attractive you are. Or they are secretly jealous that you are nice and comfortble while they are sinched up in their suit and tie. Take your pick. Short of mind-control don't expect to make many changes to this fact of life.
The point isn't that judging people by how they dress is a good thing. The point is that people *do* make those types of evaluations and it could cost you a job. The truth is that, everything else being equal, almost everyone will hire the person who thinks and acts in the way that is most appealing to them.
If you so strongly value one type of clothing over another that you are willing to reduce your job opportunities then go for it! (I personally wouldn't interview with a place that expected me to be in a suit/tie all the time unless they were paying WELL above what the other options were.)
There are certainly people out there who place little value on appearance compared to ability. (I have a customer like that and I dress accordingly when doing work for her.) There are even people who don't find intense body order offensive and won't hold it against you. (Not many.) Heck, some business owners (as I mentioned) won't even want to do business with you if you are wearing a suit and tie.
The ratio of these types of people in HR or who own a business probably varies as you move from region to region or even from area to area in a state. If you are willing to limit your job prospects only to them then do so. If you are willing to strap on a tie if needed then you expand your options.
In the end it's your choice. If a high enough percentage of tech people refused to wear a dress shirt and tie then things might change. I'd argue that they have changed a lot already actually. A lot of techs DO say (as I do) that the amount they are willing to dress up is directly related to how much above average the paycheck would be.
Why do we, as a society, insist on spending more than that?
The simple answer is, "because we do." Just be happy we aren't in the days where even the most menial office job still required a suit, tie, dress shoes and black socks.
I suppose the most likely reason is that you *appear* to be lazy. After all, if you can't bother to comb your hair to look "nice" then how much should anyone really expect from you.
Don't think that I'm a grooming natzi though. I tend to shave once every 2-3 days and the closest I've managed to come to our "slacks" dress code is a black pair of jeans instead of blue. On the other hand I wouldn't even consider coming in with ripped jeans or overyly faded ones.
I'm established within my field. I feel like my accomplishments speak for themselves and if you're not the sort of employer that's willing to look past my long hair to the long list of cool things on my resume, then you're not the sort of company that I want to work for
Good point. If you are established and skilled enough to be able to turn down potential jobs in order to find the one you are the most comfortable and happy in, congratulations! I guess I fall into that catagory to a point. I would rather work in a job with flexable hours and not too uptight of a dress code.
But if someone isn't established or skilled enough to do that then they may have to "play ball" and dress in a way they don't like.
Realistically or not, clothing does not in any meaningful way define an individual. It's just that a large number of ignorant people act like it does.
As long as those people have the $ and you want it, you can choose to either use it to your advantage and get paid or fight the stereotype and risk missing out on jobs.
Case in point... when I went for my first actual "job" working with computers I wore a suit and tie to the interview. I found out later that I was the only one who showed up "dressed for the part" and that they had almost made up their mind to give me the job before the actual interview started.
Were these people shallow? Well.. I can say that at least one of them was (very.) But the point is that I got the job and it definately made a difference in their first impression.
Since then I have always worn a suit and tie to interviews. Only once did I not get the job I interviewed for and even then I got called back two weeks later for another interview and got a higher paying job than the first one. Interstingly except for needing to wear a shirt and tie for 2 months at one place I have never had to actually "dress up" on the job in the past 15 years.
Obviously the phrase, "the clothes make the man" is BS. I'm just as good of an admin/tech/coder whether I have on a suit or a pair of swim trunks. (I'd argue better because I'm more comfortable.) So, no, you can't tell anything about someone's technical abilities from their clothes.
But consider this; Imagine that someone interviews you and someone else who is (as far as the interviewers can tell) equally technically qualified. When they talk about prospective candidates afterwards, do you want to be refered to as the guy who "knows his stuff and was well dressed" or the guy who "knows his stuff but looked like he just rolled out of bed"? You shouldn't think that going for a meeting with a potential customer is really that much different from an Interview.
Even if the people conducting the interview don't personally have a problem with the way you are dressed they may very well worry about how well you would "fit in" with their other employees. This is especially true if they have a dress code. (People tend to get a big jealous when they see that not every employer mandates how their staff must dress.)
When I see someone who looks like a slob, I don't feel bad judging them, because they chose to look that way. If you roll out of bed, put on the first articles of clothing that you find on your floor, and go with it, that's fine -- but don't say you weren't warned
I think that in many cases the amount of time and effort you put into grooming and dressing is what is judged more than the clothes themselves. The exception seems to be suit and tie. I think people equate them to "rich" or at least "has a real good job."
Funny enough, having just a little gray hair also seems to get you better service and respect.
My experiences are probably region-specific
They are. Where I used to live the best way to kill your chances for a consulting or tech job was to show up in a suit and tie. The people running many of the businesses in the area just felt uncomfortable around you and they wanted to do business with someone they can "go out for a beer" with after hours if the occasion calls for it.
And if you're selling something -- as a whole lot of OSS developers effectively are, whether they realize it or not
This is the only thing you said that I take issue with. Most OSS developers could care less how many copies of Linux, etc. are sold or used. They want to fix some problem that directly affects them or is needed for wherever they work. Since they make $0 "selling" anything the loss of a "sale" really isn't much of a concern for them I suspect.
However... IF you actually are trying to make money off of FOSS then you really should look at your target audience. Want to sell to the "500" crowd? Better don a suit and tie. Regardless of who you want to part with their money and give it to you, you shouldn't look like it took only 60 seconds for your entire grooming and dressing session in the morning.
The cost of switching to an ODF compliant file format should be a lot lower than the cost of switching to MS's XML format. Existing versions of Office (think 2000, 97, etc) don't read/write that format either.
This is why I can't imagine MS every adopting ODF. If ODF documents could be read without loss into MS-Office and written without formatting loss by MS-Office then much of the world wouldn't buy MS-Office anymore. Free vs $300? $99 vs $300?
I guess MS could lower their price on MS-Office but then they'd lose some of their 72%+ profit margin on it.
1st, if you have more than one system, most distros can install over a network. No need to burn any but the first ISO to CD in many cases. Granted you'll actually have to read how to set up the network install but that shouldn't be a big deal for someone who is doing as many Linux installs as you seem to imply you do.
2nd, if you have a 50% failure rate on burned ISOs your CD-writer is crap, you are using sub-par CD media or you are burning at too high of a rate. With my cheapo CD burner I get around 5% (1 out of 20) failures and on a better one in my work PC I have yet to have a failed burn out of around 160 CDs at max burn rate on inexpensive Imation CDs.
If you had said that you have dial-up access then a boxed set may really make sense. If you said that you like to support Linux companies I could respect you for that too. This, however, just sounds like you are cheap and lazy.
That is what I asked for. I don't remember what the install fee was but they wanted about $60/mo after all taxes and fees. I pay less than that for the delux plan phone service... and basic phone service is under 1/2 of that price.
Have you tried to buy dark fiber from a telco before?
Heck, just try renting dry copper from most telcos.
I tried to get access to 4 miles of dry copper. The price I was quoted was over 2x the price for a line WITH local phone service included. This is despite the fact that there would be no gaurantee of suitability or reliability of connections made over the wire.
I agree with you for the most part here, but honestly I don't care what the RIAA calls me
Me ethier. What I do care about are all the things they do (or want to do) that affect my abillity to enjoy music how, where and when I want. I care about activities that shut down file sharing technologies instead of going after those who actually violate copyright. I care about lobbying pressures that get bills passed charging extra fees to Internet radio sites above and beyond what physical radio sites must pay.
As far as I'm concerned they can strangle off their own business by becomming continually more and more anti-customer oriented. I'll stick with sites like magnatune.com and hope my little bit of support helps services and music providers like them stay in business.
This is why I have no plans to buy an iPod, ever. Or any more CDs for that matter.
I'm pretty much fed up with the major labels as a whole. I'm far more likely to listen to some little-known artist via web radio than Britney Spears anyhow. So, bottom line, I don't give a crap what they do as long as they don't get laws passed that restrict how I use the music I purchase from other sources (such as Magnatune.com)
I'm not a criminal and I don't like having my hands tied behind my back as if I were one. I've never given copies of my CDs, VHS or DVDs to anyone. I've politely refused when friends offered to give any of these to me. I've been online since 1993 and never once offered copies of my music files to others.
What I have done is download.mp3 files and listen to them. If I found any I really liked I bought the CD. In my case MP3 downloads resulted in probably 1/2 dozen CD purchases that I would never have made otherwise. Only years later did I even hear most of these songs on the radio.
Now that the RIAA calls anyone downloading MP3 files a theif I no longer have that source of music preview and haven't bought a single CD since. In other words "cracking down" on MP3 files online has REDUCED my purchasing. This isn't even a moral or activist response. I just don't care for much of what I hear on the radio enough to want to pay for it.
DRM will only hit the buffers when ordinary users realise they're paying for their own shackles
I've often wondered what point people will start to notice. Will it be when the owner of one of the "phone home" type DRM systems goes out of business and millions of people suddently can't listen to music they paid for? Will it be when new devices don't support the DRM on the music people bought just a few years earlier?
Would people buy cars that had restrictions making them only work on certain types of roads? What would they say if they found that new road technology may very well break their car sometime in the future? Would they say.. "oh well, if I can't drive it any more in 3 years at least I got my money's worth?"
I only have a few requirements for music I buy:
It should sound good (duh)
It should be able to play it on any device that is capable of playing CDs or music files
If it doesn't play on on one of these devices it should be possible to convert it (at no cost) so that it does
It shouldn't suddenly be unplayable in the future due to factors entirely beyond my control
DRM violates (or has the potential to violate) 3/4 of these. Which of the four are unreasonable for music that I purchased? I don't think that I should have to *lease* music!
there is no legal means of buying an MP3 download of music
Since being pedantic is apparently encouraged on/., here it goes: There are plenty of places where you can buy "an MP3 download of music". Just not the stuff you hear on the radio. If stations started playing something other than only what is sent out by the major labels then some of these other sites could get some traffic.
If you mean that the only way to get legal non-DRM copies of what you hear on the radio... then you are pretty much right. Until the DJs and music directors of radio stations are willing to do a little work to listen through the crap to find the gems though we're stuck. For now only the stuff we'll hear is the stuff the label rep tells them is good.
As far as I can tell they only allow use for testing. So the MPAA are blatent copyright infringers? Based on many of the post that makes them theves stealing from a small company who can afford it less than the MPAA can.
Wonder how a public copyright infringment lawsuit against the MPAA would play in the media.
In any case it looks like they've replaced the PDF with a new version without the registration link.
I think stallman goes a bit too far sometimes but you should be aware that the GPL gets its only power from copyright law and the ability to control what you create. I don't ever remember reading anything from RMS saying that everything should be free (as in no $) but that software should be free (as in freedom to do what you wish with it.)
AFAIK, his view on proprietary software vs "free" software stemmed from not being allowed to fix a simple bug with a printer driver because he didn't have access to the source code, not that the OS he was using cost money in the first place.
Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead.
Since becoming dead is a certainty and not a possibility, and since death is actually quite common, and since premature death has been recorded to have occurred many times... I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against lawsuits from 3rd parties is only valuable if these lawsuits have occured or are likely to occur.
Of course, now that MS has upped the limit the motivation to sue 3rd party MS developers has increased by a lot. It's probably not too far fetched to say that MS's actions have increased the likelyhood of MS developers being sued now that there are deeper pockets behind them.
I blame the recording industry and its marketing. Popularity might breed popularity, but unfortunately marketing bypasses "real popularity".
I blame the fact that in many areas today the carriers of content are also the producers. This gives them the ability to control access to content in a way that favors their own.
The same problem is happening in telecom. Instead of making money as a neutral carrier the baby bells also sell phone service, web services, web access, etc. Now companies like Verizon want to charge other content providers extra to have their content distributed... putting it at a disadvantage compared to content/services provided by the carrier themselves.
What should be seen as a conflict of interest is just considred normal business.
On the DRM front, there are bennefits to Linux to allowing it. If disallowed, the media companies are not going to change their minds for a mere 5% of the market.
The counter-argument to this, however, is that there is no requirement to lock down the code/software in order to lock the content. If specific keys need to be generated and given to you in order to unencrypt content that has little or nothing to do with the code itself. Sure, you could take out the part that deals with the DRM keys but then you couldn't open the media files. I don't understand GPLv3 to try to stop DRM lock-down of data... only of the software.
Another way of looking at it is that you can easily lock up a data file using GPG. There is no need to lock the GPG code in order to "protect" that data you encrypted. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I was thinking the same thing while writing the post.
What if the code that does most of the extra work needs to process the data in some way and the keys are required to do it correctly? Or it needs to decrypt some routine first, etc. Not sure if the latter would violate GPL2 though. I'd be more concerned that it needed to use some binary module which would only accept data which had been encrypted or would only return encrypted data which needed to be decrypted before use.... or a circuit in the hardware that did some of the processing and returned data in a format you could never view (since you couldn't run a modified firmware on the system to capture it.)
A major network equipment manufacturer takes linux, adds some functionality and starts using it as their primary/only operating system for all of the equipment. They sell it as Linux-based to the masses. Because of the vendor's market position and the new "Linux Based" advertising campaign, most customers readily buy ths stuff up.
We soon find that the hardware will only work with firmware which has been digitally signed by the vendor. Also, although the source code is available (as required by GPL2) it is useless when run on hardware that doesn't have the right keys embeded in it.
The result is hardware that can't be updated except by the vendor and modifications to the software that are not usable by the very developers responsible for Linux in the first place.
So, is this a reason to be concerned about GPL2 vs GPL3? Is the vendor's actions compatible with the spirit/intent of GPL2? Perhaps more importantly, would the fact that something like this *could* happen cause developers who would have improved Linux to stay away?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's probably irrelivant. It wouldn't be if your goal was to win. If, however, your goal is just to get rich and maintain stock prices then it doesn't matter. The only important thing to SCO management in that case is that you managed to keep a case going for three years without showing a shred of real evidence.
In the mean time, more and more of McBride's stock options are vested and free to be sold. He's getting paid big bucks for salary and bonuses. Stock prices hover about 4.5x higher than they were when this whole thing started. A bunch of people who owned stock when it was below $1/share made a killing when it hit around $20/share.
I think that part of the requirements for allowing them to set up tiers was that they could not reduce the speed of the lower teir, only increase the speeds for the upper tiers. I think that spotlights a failure of many to understand that bandwidth rates are not static. It won't be too long and even 1Mbps will be considered glacial.
In the end it ammounts to the telcos trying to squeeze every penny they can out of their customers. I suppose you can't fault them too much after all a business is supposed to make a profit. I do, however, fault our lawmakers and FCC for putting business interests ahead of the consumer.
Why are ISPs in many other countries able to offer much better bandwidth for less than most of us in the US pay for 3Mbps/768Kbps?
Nice theory. What happens when your two and only two options for broadband in an area both set up teired plans that cost you 2x as much for the max bandwidth as you currently pay?
Because the guy(s)/gal(s) doing the interview feel that poor dress and grooming are a sign of a lack of pride in yourself which might carry over into a lack of pride in your work. Or maybe they are just uptight. Or they put a value on something superficial like how attractive you are. Or they are secretly jealous that you are nice and comfortble while they are sinched up in their suit and tie. Take your pick. Short of mind-control don't expect to make many changes to this fact of life.
The point isn't that judging people by how they dress is a good thing. The point is that people *do* make those types of evaluations and it could cost you a job. The truth is that, everything else being equal, almost everyone will hire the person who thinks and acts in the way that is most appealing to them.
If you so strongly value one type of clothing over another that you are willing to reduce your job opportunities then go for it! (I personally wouldn't interview with a place that expected me to be in a suit/tie all the time unless they were paying WELL above what the other options were.)
There are certainly people out there who place little value on appearance compared to ability. (I have a customer like that and I dress accordingly when doing work for her.) There are even people who don't find intense body order offensive and won't hold it against you. (Not many.) Heck, some business owners (as I mentioned) won't even want to do business with you if you are wearing a suit and tie.
The ratio of these types of people in HR or who own a business probably varies as you move from region to region or even from area to area in a state. If you are willing to limit your job prospects only to them then do so. If you are willing to strap on a tie if needed then you expand your options.
In the end it's your choice. If a high enough percentage of tech people refused to wear a dress shirt and tie then things might change. I'd argue that they have changed a lot already actually. A lot of techs DO say (as I do) that the amount they are willing to dress up is directly related to how much above average the paycheck would be.
The simple answer is, "because we do." Just be happy we aren't in the days where even the most menial office job still required a suit, tie, dress shoes and black socks.
I suppose the most likely reason is that you *appear* to be lazy. After all, if you can't bother to comb your hair to look "nice" then how much should anyone really expect from you.
Don't think that I'm a grooming natzi though. I tend to shave once every 2-3 days and the closest I've managed to come to our "slacks" dress code is a black pair of jeans instead of blue. On the other hand I wouldn't even consider coming in with ripped jeans or overyly faded ones.
Good point. If you are established and skilled enough to be able to turn down potential jobs in order to find the one you are the most comfortable and happy in, congratulations! I guess I fall into that catagory to a point. I would rather work in a job with flexable hours and not too uptight of a dress code.
But if someone isn't established or skilled enough to do that then they may have to "play ball" and dress in a way they don't like.
As long as those people have the $ and you want it, you can choose to either use it to your advantage and get paid or fight the stereotype and risk missing out on jobs.
Case in point... when I went for my first actual "job" working with computers I wore a suit and tie to the interview. I found out later that I was the only one who showed up "dressed for the part" and that they had almost made up their mind to give me the job before the actual interview started.
Were these people shallow? Well.. I can say that at least one of them was (very.) But the point is that I got the job and it definately made a difference in their first impression.
Since then I have always worn a suit and tie to interviews. Only once did I not get the job I interviewed for and even then I got called back two weeks later for another interview and got a higher paying job than the first one. Interstingly except for needing to wear a shirt and tie for 2 months at one place I have never had to actually "dress up" on the job in the past 15 years.
Obviously the phrase, "the clothes make the man" is BS. I'm just as good of an admin/tech/coder whether I have on a suit or a pair of swim trunks. (I'd argue better because I'm more comfortable.) So, no, you can't tell anything about someone's technical abilities from their clothes.
But consider this; Imagine that someone interviews you and someone else who is (as far as the interviewers can tell) equally technically qualified. When they talk about prospective candidates afterwards, do you want to be refered to as the guy who "knows his stuff and was well dressed" or the guy who "knows his stuff but looked like he just rolled out of bed"? You shouldn't think that going for a meeting with a potential customer is really that much different from an Interview.
Even if the people conducting the interview don't personally have a problem with the way you are dressed they may very well worry about how well you would "fit in" with their other employees. This is especially true if they have a dress code. (People tend to get a big jealous when they see that not every employer mandates how their staff must dress.)
I think that in many cases the amount of time and effort you put into grooming and dressing is what is judged more than the clothes themselves. The exception seems to be suit and tie. I think people equate them to "rich" or at least "has a real good job." Funny enough, having just a little gray hair also seems to get you better service and respect.
They are. Where I used to live the best way to kill your chances for a consulting or tech job was to show up in a suit and tie. The people running many of the businesses in the area just felt uncomfortable around you and they wanted to do business with someone they can "go out for a beer" with after hours if the occasion calls for it.
This is the only thing you said that I take issue with. Most OSS developers could care less how many copies of Linux, etc. are sold or used. They want to fix some problem that directly affects them or is needed for wherever they work. Since they make $0 "selling" anything the loss of a "sale" really isn't much of a concern for them I suspect.
However... IF you actually are trying to make money off of FOSS then you really should look at your target audience. Want to sell to the "500" crowd? Better don a suit and tie. Regardless of who you want to part with their money and give it to you, you shouldn't look like it took only 60 seconds for your entire grooming and dressing session in the morning.
The cost of switching to an ODF compliant file format should be a lot lower than the cost of switching to MS's XML format. Existing versions of Office (think 2000, 97, etc) don't read/write that format either.
This is why I can't imagine MS every adopting ODF. If ODF documents could be read without loss into MS-Office and written without formatting loss by MS-Office then much of the world wouldn't buy MS-Office anymore. Free vs $300? $99 vs $300?
I guess MS could lower their price on MS-Office but then they'd lose some of their 72%+ profit margin on it.
Could you explain exactly how any of this affects the American tax payer?
2nd, if you have a 50% failure rate on burned ISOs your CD-writer is crap, you are using sub-par CD media or you are burning at too high of a rate. With my cheapo CD burner I get around 5% (1 out of 20) failures and on a better one in my work PC I have yet to have a failed burn out of around 160 CDs at max burn rate on inexpensive Imation CDs.
If you had said that you have dial-up access then a boxed set may really make sense. If you said that you like to support Linux companies I could respect you for that too. This, however, just sounds like you are cheap and lazy.
That is what I asked for. I don't remember what the install fee was but they wanted about $60/mo after all taxes and fees. I pay less than that for the delux plan phone service... and basic phone service is under 1/2 of that price.
Heck, just try renting dry copper from most telcos.
I tried to get access to 4 miles of dry copper. The price I was quoted was over 2x the price for a line WITH local phone service included. This is despite the fact that there would be no gaurantee of suitability or reliability of connections made over the wire.
Me ethier. What I do care about are all the things they do (or want to do) that affect my abillity to enjoy music how, where and when I want. I care about activities that shut down file sharing technologies instead of going after those who actually violate copyright. I care about lobbying pressures that get bills passed charging extra fees to Internet radio sites above and beyond what physical radio sites must pay.
As far as I'm concerned they can strangle off their own business by becomming continually more and more anti-customer oriented. I'll stick with sites like magnatune.com and hope my little bit of support helps services and music providers like them stay in business.
I'm pretty much fed up with the major labels as a whole. I'm far more likely to listen to some little-known artist via web radio than Britney Spears anyhow. So, bottom line, I don't give a crap what they do as long as they don't get laws passed that restrict how I use the music I purchase from other sources (such as Magnatune.com)
I'm not a criminal and I don't like having my hands tied behind my back as if I were one. I've never given copies of my CDs, VHS or DVDs to anyone. I've politely refused when friends offered to give any of these to me. I've been online since 1993 and never once offered copies of my music files to others.
What I have done is download .mp3 files and listen to them. If I found any I really liked I bought the CD. In my case MP3 downloads resulted in probably 1/2 dozen CD purchases that I would never have made otherwise. Only years later did I even hear most of these songs on the radio.
Now that the RIAA calls anyone downloading MP3 files a theif I no longer have that source of music preview and haven't bought a single CD since. In other words "cracking down" on MP3 files online has REDUCED my purchasing. This isn't even a moral or activist response. I just don't care for much of what I hear on the radio enough to want to pay for it.
I've often wondered what point people will start to notice. Will it be when the owner of one of the "phone home" type DRM systems goes out of business and millions of people suddently can't listen to music they paid for? Will it be when new devices don't support the DRM on the music people bought just a few years earlier?
Would people buy cars that had restrictions making them only work on certain types of roads? What would they say if they found that new road technology may very well break their car sometime in the future? Would they say.. "oh well, if I can't drive it any more in 3 years at least I got my money's worth?"
I only have a few requirements for music I buy:
- It should sound good (duh)
- It should be able to play it on any device that is capable of playing CDs or music files
- If it doesn't play on on one of these devices it should be possible to convert it (at no cost) so that it does
- It shouldn't suddenly be unplayable in the future due to factors entirely beyond my control
DRM violates (or has the potential to violate) 3/4 of these. Which of the four are unreasonable for music that I purchased? I don't think that I should have to *lease* music!Since being pedantic is apparently encouraged on /., here it goes:
There are plenty of places where you can buy "an MP3 download of music". Just not the stuff you hear on the radio. If stations started playing something other than only what is sent out by the major labels then some of these other sites could get some traffic.
If you mean that the only way to get legal non-DRM copies of what you hear on the radio... then you are pretty much right. Until the DJs and music directors of radio stations are willing to do a little work to listen through the crap to find the gems though we're stuck. For now only the stuff we'll hear is the stuff the label rep tells them is good.
Wonder how a public copyright infringment lawsuit against the MPAA would play in the media.
In any case it looks like they've replaced the PDF with a new version without the registration link.
I think stallman goes a bit too far sometimes but you should be aware that the GPL gets its only power from copyright law and the ability to control what you create. I don't ever remember reading anything from RMS saying that everything should be free (as in no $) but that software should be free (as in freedom to do what you wish with it.) AFAIK, his view on proprietary software vs "free" software stemmed from not being allowed to fix a simple bug with a printer driver because he didn't have access to the source code, not that the OS he was using cost money in the first place.
Since becoming dead is a certainty and not a possibility, and since death is actually quite common, and since premature death has been recorded to have occurred many times... I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against lawsuits from 3rd parties is only valuable if these lawsuits have occured or are likely to occur.
Of course, now that MS has upped the limit the motivation to sue 3rd party MS developers has increased by a lot. It's probably not too far fetched to say that MS's actions have increased the likelyhood of MS developers being sued now that there are deeper pockets behind them.
I blame the fact that in many areas today the carriers of content are also the producers. This gives them the ability to control access to content in a way that favors their own.
The same problem is happening in telecom. Instead of making money as a neutral carrier the baby bells also sell phone service, web services, web access, etc. Now companies like Verizon want to charge other content providers extra to have their content distributed... putting it at a disadvantage compared to content/services provided by the carrier themselves.
What should be seen as a conflict of interest is just considred normal business.
The counter-argument to this, however, is that there is no requirement to lock down the code/software in order to lock the content. If specific keys need to be generated and given to you in order to unencrypt content that has little or nothing to do with the code itself. Sure, you could take out the part that deals with the DRM keys but then you couldn't open the media files. I don't understand GPLv3 to try to stop DRM lock-down of data... only of the software.
Another way of looking at it is that you can easily lock up a data file using GPG. There is no need to lock the GPG code in order to "protect" that data you encrypted. The two are not mutually exclusive.
That's just not true. A plague of linux viruses is just on the horizon and will probably strike any day now!
And when it does, both people who get infected will be mighty pissed they didn't buy anti-virus software!
I was thinking the same thing while writing the post. What if the code that does most of the extra work needs to process the data in some way and the keys are required to do it correctly? Or it needs to decrypt some routine first, etc. Not sure if the latter would violate GPL2 though. I'd be more concerned that it needed to use some binary module which would only accept data which had been encrypted or would only return encrypted data which needed to be decrypted before use.... or a circuit in the hardware that did some of the processing and returned data in a format you could never view (since you couldn't run a modified firmware on the system to capture it.)
What if this happened?
A major network equipment manufacturer takes linux, adds some functionality and starts using it as their primary/only operating system for all of the equipment. They sell it as Linux-based to the masses. Because of the vendor's market position and the new "Linux Based" advertising campaign, most customers readily buy ths stuff up.
We soon find that the hardware will only work with firmware which has been digitally signed by the vendor. Also, although the source code is available (as required by GPL2) it is useless when run on hardware that doesn't have the right keys embeded in it.
The result is hardware that can't be updated except by the vendor and modifications to the software that are not usable by the very developers responsible for Linux in the first place.
So, is this a reason to be concerned about GPL2 vs GPL3? Is the vendor's actions compatible with the spirit/intent of GPL2? Perhaps more importantly, would the fact that something like this *could* happen cause developers who would have improved Linux to stay away?