Hehe, are you saying that proprietary software cannot be in principle
distributed as safely and securely as FS? I don't know if that is true,
but if so, it is one more reason to reject it.
You are raising good points, but it is not as bad as it sounds.
people wouldn't be able to get new software fast enough
Not sure what you mean here.
What about boxed software?
Easy. Optical drive = trusted repository.
It seems to me that most problems arise from the software packages being
proprietary. If true, that would only mean that proprietary software is
inherently incompatible (to an extent) with a secure distribution scheme.
But I think that most of these hurdles can be overcome by a company
like Microsoft, to a great benefit for the end user.
Because, as others have pointed out, they cannot keep saying that Linux
infringes and not sue for too long; the more they wait, the more it will look
like they are acting in bad faith.
Are you advocating Microsoft create it's own software repositories, vet all submissions to make sure they are not malware, and only allow windows to install software from those repositories?
Bingo. I would even go farther than that: I would completely purge the GUI execution of binaries. There is hardly ever a reason to run a binary in Windows, unless it is an installation binary, and the packager should take care of those. (BTW, I would really like to see that as a default setting in Gnome and KDE, before they hit the mainstream.)
As soon as you allow a user the ability to install non-distro-approved software, you allow them to install malware.
This is a valid concern. But all Microsoft has to do is to provide 99% of all requested software, and then
strongly discourage the clueless from using alternative methods of installation (which must be available, duh). This
will be enough to curb most of the malware, which matters, don't you think? Sure, the vendors can still distribute by themselves, but what benign vendor would refuse to host a binary package at an MS-approved repository? That's where most people will look first. As others have said, Debian perfected the software installation years ago. For a consumer OS, not following the suit only shows how little care they have about designing the networked OS to be secure.
Who rated this insightful? What does this have to do with "making a dent in the market"?
Nothing prevents a hardware vendor from choosing a distro and sticking with it. Who cares
if there are 12 other distros out there? The customer wants Firefox and OO to run, and they
will run. GNU/Linux already has the best packaging system ever for an inexperienced user
(deb), and any vendor is free to support it, or to relegate the support to a specialist
company.
What you are describing is a storage and distribution scheme, and
a very robust one, too. So robust, in fact, that it would still work
in the world without any kind of copyright protection. People would
pay a small fee for convenience, even though what they get might be
available for free elsewhere.
If implemented as described, your scheme would not require any DRM.
Say, you get in your car and you stream a single onto your car player.
What possible purpose would DRM serve here? If you needed to get this
single on your work computer, would it not be easier for you to use
the same service again? It's a flat fee service!
And then, what can be gained by setting the content to expire?
If a customer wanted to play the system and get a lot of content
for himself at a minimal price, he would just pirate it. You are selling
something he cannot get for free: the convenience of instant availability,
on any networked device, anywhere in the world.
Next time you are on the can, dude, just think about this:
what does DRM do besides increasing the cost of copying and
keeping publishers in business? The correct answer is provided below.
Well, I don't know if it would be that much better. I suspect that
the total effect of patents on innovation is very small. A mind
experiment, if you will: AMD vs. Intel, no patents. What are they
going to do? Agree to stop innovating and dismantle their R&D
departments? The very next day all researchers will be re-hired
in China to design a better, cheaper CPU.
If you let researchers go, you cannot really catch up to your
new rival, because you do not have anyone who understands the
technology anymore. But if you keep your R&D staffed,
you could as well make them innovate!
Unless they are dumb, their next step will be to hire that inventor
and put his brains to use. The big companies will certainly keep
innovating, not to be outdone by other big companies. It is an arms
race where the consumer always wins.
Then show a "contradiction". It has to be of the kind "Do A" and "Do not A", by the same author, to the same audience. The whole of the Bible is a record of various leaders commanding things to their respective contemporaries. The entire OT is addressed to Jews. It commands nothing to a non-Jew. Many parts of NT are addressed to specific communities in the first and second century, they command nothing to the living. Bible does not say "kill the babies"; it records that Moses commanded to kill the babies on a few occasions. Likewise, the Bible as a whole does not say "homosexuality is bad", but Paul says that to his flock.
Ergo you need to pick and choose which bits to follow.
Uh, yeah. There are exactly two such "bits" in the Bible: either you are a Jew, and then you follow the fullness of the Jewish Law, however it is interpreted by the contemporary Rabbis,
or you are a Christian, and then you follow the fullness of the Christian law, as inscribed on your heart by God.
The Bible itself is not contradictory, but the prevalent modern interpretation of it is. It is not Paul's or Moses' fault that they were compiled into the same volume, and then interpreted as speaking to all men and women in all ages. It is indeed a contradiction to say that the Bible commands specific moral precepts to the contemporary audience. It does not, and no single holy writer makes such a claim.
Bible does not contradict itself any more than a compilation of ancient Greek philosophy does.
The contradiction lies in the statement "The whole Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God".
No book in the Bible makes such an outrageous claim. And sure, when fundamentalists take 50 works
by 500 authors over 1500 years, and try to have them all agree with each other, they look like
raving idiots.
TFA is nothing more than another turd coming out of someone's fat PR ass.
We are already able to play networked games, watch YouTube videos
and download entire movies via BT. How the hell will Internet not scale
to deliver the throughput which we already have??? Will it magically implode
when a few more million people start using it? Will the telcos downgrade
the phone lines?
May be it is true that Internet is not ready to replace the TV right
at this moment, but it in no way implies that it is about to be
"brought to its knees". That would require everyone of us to actually
throw away our TVs and switch to the Internet. Right now, everyone,
in a perfectly coordinated effort. What are the chances of that happening?
Very insightful. But that was to be expected. The troubled industry consists of
publishers. Musicians still fight with each other tooth and nail for the spotlight;
but publishers are forced to compete with their former customers who discovered that
they can publish themselves, publish anything, and at a very low cost. The industry is very wise to unite
against their main competitor (it will allow them to survive for a few more years),
but they look very silly in the process, because this competitor is their former
customer -- us. There is nothing they can do, no "risk" they can possibly take to save
themselves except for strengthening the law which gives them exclusive rights.
approach to making DRM effective. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(X) It seeks to circumvent the laws of physics and logic ( ) It has been tried before and it was never shown to work (X) It will be cracked as soon as there is a demand for the protected content (X) It suffices to crack it once to obtain any number of completely unprotected copies (X) Consumers will not put up with it ( ) Publishers will not put up with it ( ) It is based on the optimistic assumption that people enjoy a fair deal more than an unfair freebie ( ) It requires immediate and total cooperation from every hardware manufacturer (X) It will be widely percieved as a defect or a lack of functionality ( ) Illegitemate copies are still cheaper
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Laws being different in different countries ( ) The greed of publishing companies ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) The cryptographic keys being necesserily availbale to the content player (X) The analog hole ( ) MP3 and other unprotected formats being entrenched as the de-facto standards ( ) Chinese generic hardware
The following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Legitimate users will still be harmed ( ) The publishers have nothing to gain from it (X) It will stop copying for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) People hate paying more than they feel is fair even if they like you (X) Sharing culture should be free ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem (X) We don't want the government or the publishers to control our electronic devices
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
I never believed that P2P would have a significant effect on the
sales of records.
P2P + litigation has no effect on the sales, or may be even encouraging sales.
P2P without litigation is clearly the end of the publishers.
Do a simple mind experiment: if RIAA pledges not to sue P2P users and torrent
trackers, the entire music publishing industry will collapse virtually overnight.
What you are saying has some truth in it though. Many of us will still opt
to contribute directly to the musicians, but these will not be "sales of records".
To draw a parallel, you do not really "buy software" when you pay $59 for a
Slackware DVD.
You are donating to the cause because Patrick kicks ass.
WTF? They released it, shouldn't it be working? I upgraded my Ubuntu to Edgy
on the day it was released, on a laptop that was 6 months old. I even
accidentally killed the GUI installation and had to finish it from the command
line because my packages got fscked (try that on Windows). Edgy was working like
a Swiss clock from day one.
I gather that you do not have any compelling reasons for copyright
in the absence of publishing. I am sure that if you did, you would have
mentioned them instead of looking up my email addresses. Since ad hominem is
your only talent, you might also want to sign me up for some spam. That will show me!
Have you given back al the money that you have received indirectly from copyright?
I didn't receive any money from copyright. I am being paid for doing the
research and teaching, and everything I produced so far was under a free license.
If Monsanto and Coke pay me to teach math, I'll do it in spite of the fact that
their money is washed in blood. I do not see any hypocrisy here. Nice try.
How do you come up with this stuff? "Works that do not exist are infinitely scarce"?
What does that even mean? Copyright is not bridging anything; it is, at its very best,
the way to transfer some of the publishers' profits to the artist. At worst, it creates
a publishing cartel supported by the state. In any case, it does not make any sense if
there is no profit in publishing, and today we can publish cheaper than any
corporation.
And what's wrong with the greatest writers having jobs? And is it even necessary for
them to have other jobs? What happened to the supply and demand? Why cannot you pay
in advance? And if no one wants to pay in advance for art that would enrich the entire
world, then why do we have to encourage the creation of art?
What is wrong with sci-fi movies being produced on lower budgets? And cannot we,
as a community of fans, pull together some funds and pay, say, Peter Jackson to make
a movie?
Please, please, give me one compelling reason why we need copyright in the world
where we do not need publishers. Just one.
You are absolutely right. I wanted to mention that, but god sidetracked.
I actually keep the latest Ubuntu CD at all times, even though I myself have
no need for it, just in case if I want to install it for whoever is willing:)
It's not Microsoft's job to provide file system drivers for every filesystem on the planet, nor should it be.
Oookay. For one, I am not talking "every filesystem on the planet" here, just ext and reiserfs. That, plus HFS+, would cover almost the entire world. Now, whose job is it to provide a filesystem driver? Seems to me like it's the OS manufacturer's job. You know, accessing filesystems, one of those things that OSes are supposed to do? But no, Microsoft is too busy to support a free, fully documented, open-sourced filesystems, even though it would be pretty much effortless for them. They have DRM to implement.
Here's what I would tell such a person: get some help. Find
a geeky friend or a co-worker who is willing to set it up for you
in dual boot with your Windows system. The distribution choice, by the way,
is largely irrelevant. If the system is fully set up
(all the drivers are working and the Windows partition is
visible) then Slackware is as easy to use as Kubuntu.
I would still recommend a Debian-based system though, since its
package management can handle a direct hit by a total noob.
Educating is mostly pointless, since these people are not
asking to get educated. They just want to try it out,
so let's just give them a fully working toy to play with.
Educating comes naturally after some use. You will start
getting questions like "why cannot my Windows see my Linux
partition?" Well, gosh, because Windows is designed to be
incompatible? Plenty, plenty of educational opportunities
will be available later, for both technical and political
topics.
But for starters, just give the man a working OS!
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe, are you saying that proprietary software cannot be in principle distributed as safely and securely as FS? I don't know if that is true, but if so, it is one more reason to reject it.
You are raising good points, but it is not as bad as it sounds.
Not sure what you mean here.Easy. Optical drive = trusted repository.
It seems to me that most problems arise from the software packages being proprietary. If true, that would only mean that proprietary software is inherently incompatible (to an extent) with a secure distribution scheme. But I think that most of these hurdles can be overcome by a company like Microsoft, to a great benefit for the end user.
Because, as others have pointed out, they cannot keep saying that Linux infringes and not sue for too long; the more they wait, the more it will look like they are acting in bad faith.
I agree completely. To become a nerds' icon, nothing beats the crowbar.
Bingo. I would even go farther than that: I would completely purge the GUI execution of binaries. There is hardly ever a reason to run a binary in Windows, unless it is an installation binary, and the packager should take care of those. (BTW, I would really like to see that as a default setting in Gnome and KDE, before they hit the mainstream.)
This is a valid concern. But all Microsoft has to do is to provide 99% of all requested software, and then strongly discourage the clueless from using alternative methods of installation (which must be available, duh). This will be enough to curb most of the malware, which matters, don't you think? Sure, the vendors can still distribute by themselves, but what benign vendor would refuse to host a binary package at an MS-approved repository? That's where most people will look first. As others have said, Debian perfected the software installation years ago. For a consumer OS, not following the suit only shows how little care they have about designing the networked OS to be secure.
Who rated this insightful? What does this have to do with "making a dent in the market"? Nothing prevents a hardware vendor from choosing a distro and sticking with it. Who cares if there are 12 other distros out there? The customer wants Firefox and OO to run, and they will run. GNU/Linux already has the best packaging system ever for an inexperienced user (deb), and any vendor is free to support it, or to relegate the support to a specialist company.
What you are describing is a storage and distribution scheme, and a very robust one, too. So robust, in fact, that it would still work in the world without any kind of copyright protection. People would pay a small fee for convenience, even though what they get might be available for free elsewhere.
If implemented as described, your scheme would not require any DRM. Say, you get in your car and you stream a single onto your car player. What possible purpose would DRM serve here? If you needed to get this single on your work computer, would it not be easier for you to use the same service again? It's a flat fee service!
And then, what can be gained by setting the content to expire? If a customer wanted to play the system and get a lot of content for himself at a minimal price, he would just pirate it. You are selling something he cannot get for free: the convenience of instant availability, on any networked device, anywhere in the world.
Next time you are on the can, dude, just think about this: what does DRM do besides increasing the cost of copying and keeping publishers in business? The correct answer is provided below.
(gnihtoN)
The Peter Principle
Well, I don't know if it would be that much better. I suspect that the total effect of patents on innovation is very small. A mind experiment, if you will: AMD vs. Intel, no patents. What are they going to do? Agree to stop innovating and dismantle their R&D departments? The very next day all researchers will be re-hired in China to design a better, cheaper CPU.
If you let researchers go, you cannot really catch up to your new rival, because you do not have anyone who understands the technology anymore. But if you keep your R&D staffed, you could as well make them innovate!
Unless they are dumb, their next step will be to hire that inventor and put his brains to use. The big companies will certainly keep innovating, not to be outdone by other big companies. It is an arms race where the consumer always wins.
Then show a "contradiction". It has to be of the kind "Do A" and "Do not A", by the same author, to the same audience. The whole of the Bible is a record of various leaders commanding things to their respective contemporaries. The entire OT is addressed to Jews. It commands nothing to a non-Jew. Many parts of NT are addressed to specific communities in the first and second century, they command nothing to the living. Bible does not say "kill the babies"; it records that Moses commanded to kill the babies on a few occasions. Likewise, the Bible as a whole does not say "homosexuality is bad", but Paul says that to his flock.
Uh, yeah. There are exactly two such "bits" in the Bible: either you are a Jew, and then you follow the fullness of the Jewish Law, however it is interpreted by the contemporary Rabbis, or you are a Christian, and then you follow the fullness of the Christian law, as inscribed on your heart by God.
The Bible itself is not contradictory, but the prevalent modern interpretation of it is. It is not Paul's or Moses' fault that they were compiled into the same volume, and then interpreted as speaking to all men and women in all ages. It is indeed a contradiction to say that the Bible commands specific moral precepts to the contemporary audience. It does not, and no single holy writer makes such a claim.
Bible does not contradict itself any more than a compilation of ancient Greek philosophy does. The contradiction lies in the statement "The whole Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God". No book in the Bible makes such an outrageous claim. And sure, when fundamentalists take 50 works by 500 authors over 1500 years, and try to have them all agree with each other, they look like raving idiots.
TFA is nothing more than another turd coming out of someone's fat PR ass.
We are already able to play networked games, watch YouTube videos and download entire movies via BT. How the hell will Internet not scale to deliver the throughput which we already have??? Will it magically implode when a few more million people start using it? Will the telcos downgrade the phone lines?
May be it is true that Internet is not ready to replace the TV right at this moment, but it in no way implies that it is about to be "brought to its knees". That would require everyone of us to actually throw away our TVs and switch to the Internet. Right now, everyone, in a perfectly coordinated effort. What are the chances of that happening?
Very insightful. But that was to be expected. The troubled industry consists of publishers. Musicians still fight with each other tooth and nail for the spotlight; but publishers are forced to compete with their former customers who discovered that they can publish themselves, publish anything, and at a very low cost. The industry is very wise to unite against their main competitor (it will allow them to survive for a few more years), but they look very silly in the process, because this competitor is their former customer -- us. There is nothing they can do, no "risk" they can possibly take to save themselves except for strengthening the law which gives them exclusive rights.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) psychological
approach to making DRM effective. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(X) It seeks to circumvent the laws of physics and logic
( ) It has been tried before and it was never shown to work
(X) It will be cracked as soon as there is a demand for the protected content
(X) It suffices to crack it once to obtain any number of completely unprotected copies
(X) Consumers will not put up with it
( ) Publishers will not put up with it
( ) It is based on the optimistic assumption that people enjoy a fair deal more than an unfair freebie
( ) It requires immediate and total cooperation from every hardware manufacturer
(X) It will be widely percieved as a defect or a lack of functionality
( ) Illegitemate copies are still cheaper
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Laws being different in different countries
( ) The greed of publishing companies
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) The cryptographic keys being necesserily availbale to the content player
(X) The analog hole
( ) MP3 and other unprotected formats being entrenched as the de-facto standards
( ) Chinese generic hardware
The following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Legitimate users will still be harmed
( ) The publishers have nothing to gain from it
(X) It will stop copying for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) People hate paying more than they feel is fair even if they like you
(X) Sharing culture should be free
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) We don't want the government or the publishers to control our electronic devices
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Content publishers are the blacksmiths, DVD's are the horseshoes, BT trackers are the railroads. This is the best analogy ever.
P2P + litigation has no effect on the sales, or may be even encouraging sales. P2P without litigation is clearly the end of the publishers. Do a simple mind experiment: if RIAA pledges not to sue P2P users and torrent trackers, the entire music publishing industry will collapse virtually overnight.
What you are saying has some truth in it though. Many of us will still opt to contribute directly to the musicians, but these will not be "sales of records". To draw a parallel, you do not really "buy software" when you pay $59 for a Slackware DVD. You are donating to the cause because Patrick kicks ass.
WTF? They released it, shouldn't it be working? I upgraded my Ubuntu to Edgy on the day it was released, on a laptop that was 6 months old. I even accidentally killed the GUI installation and had to finish it from the command line because my packages got fscked (try that on Windows). Edgy was working like a Swiss clock from day one.
Great post. I was laughing at "interoperable" too.
I gather that you do not have any compelling reasons for copyright in the absence of publishing. I am sure that if you did, you would have mentioned them instead of looking up my email addresses. Since ad hominem is your only talent, you might also want to sign me up for some spam. That will show me!
I didn't receive any money from copyright. I am being paid for doing the research and teaching, and everything I produced so far was under a free license. If Monsanto and Coke pay me to teach math, I'll do it in spite of the fact that their money is washed in blood. I do not see any hypocrisy here. Nice try.
How do you come up with this stuff? "Works that do not exist are infinitely scarce"? What does that even mean? Copyright is not bridging anything; it is, at its very best, the way to transfer some of the publishers' profits to the artist. At worst, it creates a publishing cartel supported by the state. In any case, it does not make any sense if there is no profit in publishing, and today we can publish cheaper than any corporation.
And what's wrong with the greatest writers having jobs? And is it even necessary for them to have other jobs? What happened to the supply and demand? Why cannot you pay in advance? And if no one wants to pay in advance for art that would enrich the entire world, then why do we have to encourage the creation of art?
What is wrong with sci-fi movies being produced on lower budgets? And cannot we, as a community of fans, pull together some funds and pay, say, Peter Jackson to make a movie?
Please, please, give me one compelling reason why we need copyright in the world where we do not need publishers. Just one.
You are absolutely right. I wanted to mention that, but god sidetracked. I actually keep the latest Ubuntu CD at all times, even though I myself have no need for it, just in case if I want to install it for whoever is willing :)
Here's what I would tell such a person: get some help. Find a geeky friend or a co-worker who is willing to set it up for you in dual boot with your Windows system. The distribution choice, by the way, is largely irrelevant. If the system is fully set up (all the drivers are working and the Windows partition is visible) then Slackware is as easy to use as Kubuntu. I would still recommend a Debian-based system though, since its package management can handle a direct hit by a total noob.
Educating is mostly pointless, since these people are not asking to get educated. They just want to try it out, so let's just give them a fully working toy to play with. Educating comes naturally after some use. You will start getting questions like "why cannot my Windows see my Linux partition?" Well, gosh, because Windows is designed to be incompatible? Plenty, plenty of educational opportunities will be available later, for both technical and political topics. But for starters, just give the man a working OS!