What we need to avoid all of this is strong digital consumer legislation that requires that every digital rights management system include escape hatches to allow for Fair Use, format shifting, platform shifting and copyright expiration. That would prevent the abuse of the technology without taking away the usefulness of TCPA.
It's a sad, but yes, legislation to protect fair use is very necessary. Previously, fair use was a defense against a copyright infringement suit, and nobody worried about it being taken away because it wasn't technically possible. Now, we see that it is technically possible to mostly (but not completely) to make fair use impossible.
That's not bad in itself, except that with legislation like the DMCA, although fair use may always be technically possible, can now be made legally impossible. For example, format shifting DVDs, which would be fair use, is now probably illegal.
Normally, even the ability to destroy fair use on a technological and legal level isn't enough, because it won't sell. The rights of fair use are worth quite a lot to consumers, and they would pay for them. Unfortunately, there's no real competition in any content industry, so if the entire industry decides to mandate technically and legally protected DRM, it is forced on the consumers, who have no other choice.
The unfortunate combination of advances in cryptography, reactive legislation, and poor market dynamics are putting fair use rights in jeopardy. There ought to be a law!
There's no question that the actions of an individual do reflect on the various groups he is a part of, be they minority, religious, open source, or a commercial. People do generalize, but they shouldn't. Grandparent is saying prejudice shouldn't happen, you're saying it does. I think the comparison to racism, though non-PC, was apt. And yes, we should police ourselves, and we do.
As for the choice issue, yes, members of the OSS community, as opposed to, say, the southpaws (who I hope aren't so easily offended), are members by choice, not birth. But even if I chose to be a member of the OSS community, I didn't choose to participate in a DDoS, and it's not fair that I should be judged differently because of it.
I don't see a big problem with files being intangible, in fact, it's probably a benefit. (Consider MP3's newfound popularity over CDs, despite slightly lower quality.) Granted, the general public probably doesn't agree now, but this will change as the public gradually becomes more computer literate.
I see two big problems with ebooks. The first is convenience, but I think this will improve as display and battery technology gets better and as the price comes down. An ideal reader (infinite battery life, perfect display, etc.) would be much better than paper.
The other problem is the current lack of "ownership." Legal issues aside, you "own" a CD, or an MP3 or Vorbis file, but you don't "own" anything with DRM. I mean "own" in the sense of, "I can do whatever I want with it (though there may be consequences)."
Unfortunately, I suspect the BPAA (or whatever) will pull a RIAA, and this will slow and illegitimize the adoption of ebooks. I do think eventually you'll be able to pay a cheap price for a non-encumbered download, both for books and music, but unfortunately it will take a long time. I'd guess in 5 - 10 years, the reader technology will be ideal, and in another 5 or so the book market will restabilize in a sane fasion.
That would be very interesting, but I wonder if it's legal with whatever contracts the authors have signed. Do these contracts still let the author redistribute his work in electronic form as he pleases?
We need to ban all non-internet communication, because such communication requires more effort to slashdot and thus limits our power. Email your congresscritters today!
Here's an idea: let's have browsers that automatically create links from obvious URLs, like many mail and news clients do. This would also help with Slashdot, since people are so darn lazy. That counts as prior art, BTW.
What are the real differences in architecture that make it this way? I'm kind of a "reinvent the wheel" type person, so I wonder whether AMD has had to make sacrifices to keep this compatibility. On the other hand, Linus seems to prefer AMD's design.
Now I can understand not caring about (somewhat) open formats because it doesn't affect you personally. I can understand it may not profitable. I consider it giving up just a little freedom, but you're free to do that. But why are you so vehemently opposed to other people promoting open standards? Why don't you shuddup!
It's not quick-n-easy from our point of view, because we realize how technically difficult it would be, how oppressive it would be, and how futile it would be. But to a legislator, it is indeed just as quick-n-easy as anything else they do; just pass a law making anonymous communication, or even all forms of P2P, illegal, and let whichever organization cares sue/arrest people.
Interestingly, since it could be argued in court that all internet communication is anonymous and P2P on some levels, this would be paramount to making everything illegal and selectively enforcing it. But does anybody influential care?
Even more interesting would be a record store that had seperate, clearly marked racks for CDs and non-CDs, and have a clerk explain the fiasco to the confused customers. Educate the public! An indie rack would be nice, too.
If the crippled discs were clearly labled, then boycotting would in fact work, even if it was completely unorganized. It wouldn't just be Slashdot readers, even the ones who buy normal discs, not buying the crippled discs. You can bet that any consumer who can read will, after having a CD not work in his car or his computer, not buy crippled CDs. The industry would see a huge decline in crippled CD sales, but only a small decline in normal CD sales (the new people who reject CDs on principle). Then the industry would clearly see (even if they wouldn't admit it) that all other things being equal, DRM doesn't sell. Maybe it would encourage them to offer non-DRM online music, which I'd buy in a heartbeat.
Actually, I think if there were two organizations (or none, and just competing companies), the situation would be much better. The root cause of RIAA's actions is that they have no incentive whatsoever to improve. They can charge $20 for a CD, because who else will you buy from? They can sue you, because who will you listen to when you boycott them? They can push DRM, because what are the legal alternatives to getting their music from them in their formats?
This was the whole point of antitrust laws, and they really ought to be applied. Of course, the legal system isn't the only way; you can also support alternatives and hope some competition springs up. Perpetuating monopolies sucks in the long run. If there were real competition, CD's would be reasonably priced, the industry would respect the customer, and DRM wouldn't be tolerated, as it would be a competitive disadvantage.
Oh, you mean like a library? Borrowing a CD and returning it, while making sure never to make a copy, which would be wrong? It does require going outside, though.
Notice there's a difference between ignorance of the law and ignorance of breaking it. IOW, someone downloading songs can't say he didn't know copyright infringement was illegal, but someone using Linux (probably, IANAL) wouldn't be liable if (as is the case) they have no reason to believe they are infringing anyone's copyrights.
I'd much prefer a killer app that's simply open source, but runs in both Windows and Linux. Why? Nobody's going to switch to Linux because of one app; they probably won't even know it exists. But if the apps they use are all available for Linux (the exact same software, not just something that does the same thing), then it's much easier for them to switch.
Consider office software. Suppose someone wants to switch to Linux, but uses Microsoft Office. They ask me, "does Linux have that?" to which I must reply; "it's possible but difficult to run Office in Linux. You could try OpenOffice, though." But if they already use OpenOffice, I can just say "Yes," and the switch is that much easier. If Windows users use open source apps, than from their perspective, the switch to an open source OS means little more than getting a new window manager.
The drug industry is a horse of a different color, primarily because it takes years and billions to create innovations. In the drug industry, innovation is expensive (R&D, testing, certification) and implemtation is cheap, whereas for software, innovation is cheap and implementation (the boring part) is expensive. This is why patents work so much better for the drug industry than they do for the software industry.
Also, the drug industry is inherently "open source," because you clearly can't get FDA approval without publicising the formula. This is why they need patents, just as we need copyrights. On the other hand, "anyone" can't make the drug just by knowing the formula. In fact, may of the patents are not for the chemical itself, but the fabrication method.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a sad, but yes, legislation to protect fair use is very necessary. Previously, fair use was a defense against a copyright infringement suit, and nobody worried about it being taken away because it wasn't technically possible. Now, we see that it is technically possible to mostly (but not completely) to make fair use impossible.
That's not bad in itself, except that with legislation like the DMCA, although fair use may always be technically possible, can now be made legally impossible. For example, format shifting DVDs, which would be fair use, is now probably illegal.
Normally, even the ability to destroy fair use on a technological and legal level isn't enough, because it won't sell. The rights of fair use are worth quite a lot to consumers, and they would pay for them. Unfortunately, there's no real competition in any content industry, so if the entire industry decides to mandate technically and legally protected DRM, it is forced on the consumers, who have no other choice.
The unfortunate combination of advances in cryptography, reactive legislation, and poor market dynamics are putting fair use rights in jeopardy. There ought to be a law!
As for the choice issue, yes, members of the OSS community, as opposed to, say, the southpaws (who I hope aren't so easily offended), are members by choice, not birth. But even if I chose to be a member of the OSS community, I didn't choose to participate in a DDoS, and it's not fair that I should be judged differently because of it.
I see two big problems with ebooks. The first is convenience, but I think this will improve as display and battery technology gets better and as the price comes down. An ideal reader (infinite battery life, perfect display, etc.) would be much better than paper.
The other problem is the current lack of "ownership." Legal issues aside, you "own" a CD, or an MP3 or Vorbis file, but you don't "own" anything with DRM. I mean "own" in the sense of, "I can do whatever I want with it (though there may be consequences)."
Unfortunately, I suspect the BPAA (or whatever) will pull a RIAA, and this will slow and illegitimize the adoption of ebooks. I do think eventually you'll be able to pay a cheap price for a non-encumbered download, both for books and music, but unfortunately it will take a long time. I'd guess in 5 - 10 years, the reader technology will be ideal, and in another 5 or so the book market will restabilize in a sane fasion.
That would be very interesting, but I wonder if it's legal with whatever contracts the authors have signed. Do these contracts still let the author redistribute his work in electronic form as he pleases?
The last thing we need is a bunch of RIAA clones, flooding the network with worthless files.
The problem's pretty easy to solve with infinite salesmen... but at what price?
Blake: Stand by to fire at Rebel base.
NO CARRIER Linus: Great shot, kid. That was one in a million.
We need to ban all non-internet communication, because such communication requires more effort to slashdot and thus limits our power. Email your congresscritters today!
I've said it before and I'll say it again... clueless people need to die.
Yeah, but you can still talk about infringement. Or at least you should be able to.
Here's an idea: let's have browsers that automatically create links from obvious URLs, like many mail and news clients do. This would also help with Slashdot, since people are so darn lazy. That counts as prior art, BTW.
What are the real differences in architecture that make it this way? I'm kind of a "reinvent the wheel" type person, so I wonder whether AMD has had to make sacrifices to keep this compatibility. On the other hand, Linus seems to prefer AMD's design.
Screw binary games, can you imagine Gentoo on that baby?
BASIC? Hah. TIMTOWTDI!
China has nukes aimed at Redmond? I'm beginning to wish they ran Windows!
Now I can understand not caring about (somewhat) open formats because it doesn't affect you personally. I can understand it may not profitable. I consider it giving up just a little freedom, but you're free to do that. But why are you so vehemently opposed to other people promoting open standards? Why don't you shuddup!
Seriously, though, it's obviously and certainly incorrect to put spaces before a question mark.
Interestingly, since it could be argued in court that all internet communication is anonymous and P2P on some levels, this would be paramount to making everything illegal and selectively enforcing it. But does anybody influential care?
Even more interesting would be a record store that had seperate, clearly marked racks for CDs and non-CDs, and have a clerk explain the fiasco to the confused customers. Educate the public! An indie rack would be nice, too.
If the crippled discs were clearly labled, then boycotting would in fact work, even if it was completely unorganized. It wouldn't just be Slashdot readers, even the ones who buy normal discs, not buying the crippled discs. You can bet that any consumer who can read will, after having a CD not work in his car or his computer, not buy crippled CDs. The industry would see a huge decline in crippled CD sales, but only a small decline in normal CD sales (the new people who reject CDs on principle). Then the industry would clearly see (even if they wouldn't admit it) that all other things being equal, DRM doesn't sell. Maybe it would encourage them to offer non-DRM online music, which I'd buy in a heartbeat.
This was the whole point of antitrust laws, and they really ought to be applied. Of course, the legal system isn't the only way; you can also support alternatives and hope some competition springs up. Perpetuating monopolies sucks in the long run. If there were real competition, CD's would be reasonably priced, the industry would respect the customer, and DRM wouldn't be tolerated, as it would be a competitive disadvantage.
Oh, you mean like a library? Borrowing a CD and returning it, while making sure never to make a copy, which would be wrong? It does require going outside, though.
Notice there's a difference between ignorance of the law and ignorance of breaking it. IOW, someone downloading songs can't say he didn't know copyright infringement was illegal, but someone using Linux (probably, IANAL) wouldn't be liable if (as is the case) they have no reason to believe they are infringing anyone's copyrights.
Consider office software. Suppose someone wants to switch to Linux, but uses Microsoft Office. They ask me, "does Linux have that?" to which I must reply; "it's possible but difficult to run Office in Linux. You could try OpenOffice, though." But if they already use OpenOffice, I can just say "Yes," and the switch is that much easier. If Windows users use open source apps, than from their perspective, the switch to an open source OS means little more than getting a new window manager.
Also, the drug industry is inherently "open source," because you clearly can't get FDA approval without publicising the formula. This is why they need patents, just as we need copyrights. On the other hand, "anyone" can't make the drug just by knowing the formula. In fact, may of the patents are not for the chemical itself, but the fabrication method.