I wonder why this ad is first appearing overseas? I guess M$haft doesn't want to find out the hard way they've offended thousands of CEO's here in the States as to their new IT stragegy embracing openness.
I can see by rabtech's post here that my comment isnt going to be well received. Call me cynical, but I'd like to think things of this nature are calculated. Remember the Halloween documents! MSFT have always been aware of the geek factor. It's just that as of late, they've learned we are a force with which to be reckoned. I figure they're just doing this to put up another smokescreen. What's coming next?
I agree with you about things with the exception of the Serial Number issue. I only disagree as Intel marketed the ID to the wrong folks for the wrong reason. They marketed the serial number to you and I, joe consumer; go figure, we're their market. yeah they sell most processors to Compaq and Dell, but in the end, they come to you and I. We had to know what they were up to. They said the ID's would be great for online-purchasing. they must have been idiots to think we wouldn't be concerned with the privacy issue.
on the other hand, had they marketed the CPU's to the software companies and said "look, you can license a piece of software to a single pc," they'd have had some support. but they didnt. Understand, Sun, IBM, and im sure all the other big enterprise hardware companies have and use processor serial numbers for licensing. IBM have been doing it for decades.
Intel's a pretty good technological company, they've just been f*cking up with their marketing as of late. But I blame that on M$. Remember way back when (a few years ago) when you coulndt find a computer-related commercial on TV. Now its almost all we see. As soon as M$ decided to sell computers to Joe Six-pack, the industry has gotten even _more_ stupid.
Gee I guess that means we'll have a few more companies to boycott. I am saddened by all these events. Now of course who really gives two shits about this, since we don't use Windows and ME is of course out of the question.
Dude, go figure if these guys (our congress) _wanted_ to pass legalising legislation, they'd never be elected again. Even if pro-legal folks are the majority, we certainly don't have enough money to line their coffers. The rich minority, old-fashioned conservatives are able to do that. And without dough in the coffers, we won't see the wonderful ad-campaigns and noone will know who Dem., Rep, Ind, etc. Joe Blow is at election time. Which means that we (the minority) need to become more educated (perhaps in political or social leadership) and take to the congress ourselves.
I agree with several of your comments on windows vs. linux. I really hate seeing all this attention on linux coming from M$ turncoats. I for one did not jump on the "linux for everyone" bandwagon; if it fits the bill then use it.
Linux' strength comes from the fact that there is source code available and that one can get the whole system (source code and all) for free. Persons can also contribute to the system and have other folks help them out finding bugs, adding features or whatever. The BSD's don't make this quite as easy. Solaris, AIX, SCO, Winblows, etc this isn't even an option. Those systems are targetted at people who don't want/can't provide their _own_ solutions. They get a contract (warranty, license whatever) and the vendor deals with their problems.
Unfortunately, the mass media have tapped into the "Linux craze" and fluff it more that most of us want. That's their nature; these are the same folks who don't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker;-)
We can't really do anything to reverse all that has happened, and would we really want to? I think its great to see all these new linux-related companies. They've legitimized using Linux in the workplace; I just don't agree that it needs to replace M$ products at all levels. However, if it makes a better WINS, DNS, Web, whatever server then lets use it. I don't want Joe Dontknownothing buying a system installed with Linux, "just because." M$ have allowed people to be dumb for too long and I personally don't want to deal with those folks. I just want to deal with the people that can help me get _my_ job done quicker/easier with more flexibilty.
Congress has no idea what goes on in the agencies, haven't you read any of Tom Clancy's work. Realize, he almost got busted by the (one of them, i cant remember) because they were under the impression he was writing about classified material. My point is that even though these agencies receive funding through congress, they (congress) have no idea whats going on inside. Supposedly, that's what over-sight commitees are for. Of course lying is an option, comeon now, they're spy agencies; their JOB is lying.
As for your rant, I totally agree with you. It'll never happen because every day (at the urging of every other oppressive government in the world) the US congress is under pressure to take away our right to bear arms. The majority of people in this country don't care and those that do don't have a voice. If the masses get their drunk, doped-up, stupid asses to the voting booth, they play eenie-meenie-miney-moe and then retreat back to their drunken state.
Come on now, it's not as if the majority of American citizens knew about this system. I can't beleive that the EU is gonna whoop our ass because of some spy systems we didn't even know about. Harldy any of our senators and representative know anything about it. The only thinge we can do at this point is get on our congressmen to cut the intelligence services (yes, plural meaning _all_ the depts) spending. If we get the NSA down to 1million a year, I doubt they'll be able to afford to run the operation;-) Of course this'll never happen so be prepared to get your ass kicked next time you visit France.
I dunno man. Consider the community. The fact that we are geeks and net-heads still doesnt satisfy our human need for human relationships. These inter-personal relationships most-times cannot be effectively conducted through wire-transmissions. Sometimes, you gotta get out of the house. What better place than to go to a Linux Show?! I tell ya, I'd go if work would let me take the time off. Even if they don't pay for the trip, it's still worth it. You would've gotten to meet some people and do some networking. Its all good to satisfy those human needs.
You said it right there Guy. Intent is the key. But to know the intent means you can get into someone's head, which is impossible. You can say I had malicious intent all you want and unless I agree with you you really have no proof because I can just plead the 5th. It's your responsibilty during discovery to find and show facts that can hint at my intent.
The issue that most slashdotters are getting at, whether or not they know it, is "What constitutes Aiding and Abetting?" The RIAA is trying to set precedent such that all file-sharing is made illegal on the premise that file-sharing leads to the illegal distribution of MP3s or The-Next-Big-Thing. There are a lot of companies who will be in trouble if/when these precendents are set; consider M$, Novell, Banyan, (all the) Unix's, etc. They all have the potential to allow someone to pirate music. The only thing is that Napster makes it easier to find music (that I should be able to try before i buy since it costs so damn much). My argument is that the legality of linking should not be in question as the problem is the RIAA and the music industry themselves. Or didn't you read the article that Courtney Love wrote. Oh thats right, my story never got posted.
What we have here are a few lawsuits based on the fundamental right(s) to fair use. Be resonable damnit, there's nothing illegal about a person linking to any information. I have made a conscious decision if I go and download warez or MP3z. I am commiting the illegal act if I don't buy the stuff. (BTW, I would have never re-discovered Jamiriqua if it weren't for MP3s, and YES I HAVE BOUGHT THE CDS, although J will almost surely never see or hear of my thanks for making some jamming music)
If a guy puts up a site with _links_, how is he commiting a crime? That's like saying that Packetstorm or CERT are responsible for every crack that happens to a site. That's like saying that every VCR, cassette tape, CR-R/CD-RW, weapons, drug (legal), paint, etc, etc, etc... manufacturer is responsible whenever his products are used for illegal purposes. When I buy a bottle of shampoo, it says dont take it internally; they've given enough warning not to be liable. Of course, they've only stated the obvious. The thought would never cross the normal-thinking person's mind.
Why can't I buy a DVD and expect it to be viewable in my Linux-based PC? Why can't I download a song by an unsigned artist and decide to pay him/her directly myself? Heaven forbid someone besides the major media-moguls made some money. Whats so bad about me downloading a few mp3's before I go and buy the CD? I tell you what, I was pissed when I bought the Jennifer Lopez CD. Of all the house tracks I'd heard on the radio, I expected to find the CD worth a damn. If only I had downloaded a few songs _before_ shelling the (outrageously over-priced) $17 bucks. Now that's fair use. If the song, program, whatever, is worth a damn (which I can find out in a relatively short amount of time) THEN I'll buy it. To hell with this buy-it, try-it, no-return policy shit.
I know this post has turned into a rant, but I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. What I'm getting at is the site is providing me a service when they point me in the direction (via links) of X,Y,Z. It's _my_ responsibility to Do-The-Right-Thing if those links point to items of questionable legality.
How about this... Rambus knows they have legally enforcable patents on Rambus DRAM. They have some patents on SDRAM(DDR) that if a dumb judge/patent review board saw them, they might think they are cool. Eventually, someone is going to figure out that the royalty payments on the SDRAM isn't cool, but by that time, Rambus has made the cost of SDRAM so huge that Rambus memory (which they, without question, can enforce) has become the defacto standard and we are thussly held f*cked. Perhaps I'm being too paranoid.
Beleive me it wasnt brown-nosing in the classic sense. It was more like a statement of respect like one can have for Gates or Jobs; you respect them for where they've come from and gone, not necessarily the tactics they have taken to acheive that status. My statement was "Thanks to Rob for having the vision to create a single focal point for the geek community."
How many times have you read or seen Slashdot mentioned in news broadcasts? A few, right? That woulnd't have happened if Rob never created/. However, this site doesnt reflect the feelings of the whole community (could a single site ever acomplish such a feat?). It's this fact that hurts me the most because I contribute, by way of comments, and I feel that I am a part of this site; but the stories _I_ feel important never get posted. The FAQ doesnt say much to make one feel better about it either. At least at K5, you _know_ that _someone_ is reading your potential post, and you can receive some feedback on how to fix it to get it posted.
you sound surprised. there are only a select few who get to do the posting on this site. if you want to see (your own) postings for things which _YOU_ feel are pertinent to the geek community, you need to start your _OWN_ news site. -but- I thank Rob (and those of us who comment and/.-DoS sites;-)) for having created/(contribute) a focal point for the geek community for the Mass-Media to acknowlege. I just think we need to be a little more open about the kind of stories we want posted here.
Because CSS is a format agreed upon by hundreds of money-hungary (rich) folks _who've got nothing better to do with their time_. Plain and simple, CSS was not a format meant to protect the IP of movies, it was meant as a tool to enforce legal restrictions on copying movies. Heaven forbid a person tryed to watch a DVD on a free OS.
Exactly my point on why they need to be broken up further. However, the judge can/has/will make prescribe that the old business practices can no-longer be followed. there will be a commitee that over-sees what M$x2,3,whatever are up to. If the committee feels they are being assess, more problems for them. We can only hope that some more intelligent mandates come down from which ever court(s) hear the appeal(s).
The FBI is just trying to get more funding;-) You all know that every executive enforcement agency is jockeying to be "The" internet defense agency. This is yet another installment of "Look at me, the FBI, I was first on site." I'll bet you the so-called "hackers" Serbian and Badman are actually working for NETSEC in one of those SecureRooms (tm). Keep in mind, like the article says, NETSEC was created by the NSA and DoD. Conspiracy, I think not.
You must be one of those Micro$erfs. I hope you realize that line is just a piece (of shit) of marketing blabber specificly designed to sound Nice and Cheery (tm). I don't know about you, but I like the idea of (heaven forbid) if I have to re-install that I get to use full-blown application install media so I can choose which pieces of the software I want to re-install. You realize that every OEM uses that excuse when a piece of software, or hardware for that matter, doesnt work. I was told by Toshiba that I couldn't install a piece of (new) hardware into a notebook without reinstalling NT. I said "Thanks, have a nice day." What Kind of Bullshit (tm) is that, huh?
Regardless of what Bill or any other major-player says, when you go in and buy a piece of software you're buying something tangible, right? Tangible in the sense that it has function and you can use it. It's not tangible like a hammer, but how many things in the computer industry are. How can a company charge 1000+ dollars for a piece of software and EXPECT their client not to think they own it. That's just plain ludicrisy. What's being suggested is that a billion+ people are going to have to be brainwashed of the idea that when they spend loots of hard-earned money that they _AREN'T_ buying anything tangible. That's not gonna happen.
We need to chill out, guys and gals, because pretty soon the Courts are going to once again remember the little guy. Laws are meant to protect us too, you know. The courts have long-upheld fair-use. If (court) decisions are made that put the law on the side of the software manufacturers, you can best beleive that there'll be some new judges being instated.
BTW, at least back in the day when Cpq made you use 50 floppies to save the app install, you GOT the app install disks, it wasn't no crippled (tm) bullshit.
After having read the decision from the post, I have a pretty simple question: "can it apply outside realm of sexually-related material?" I have known quite a few parents who are disturbed by the crap shown on MTV at any time of day, and when they approach The Cable Company to have it removed, they get the run-around. If I understand the quote:
"One plausible, less restrictive alternative could be found in 504 of the Act, which requires a cable operator, "[u]pon request by a cable service subscriber... without charge, [to] fully scramble or otherwise fully block" any channel the subscriber does not wish to receive."
I would think this would apply in such a case, as law is (usually) specificaly written (sic) to be as universally applicable as possible. Or are The Cable Companies in my region just punk-asses? What are your thoughts?
No, I think he's saying "Put up or shut up." It was an excellent article and I'll prolly go buy the book. There _IS_ a moral side to war, which we Americans seem to have forgotten. Some of that, I'm sure, comes from the fact that war has become to "commercialized." Personally, I'm tired of seeing "graphic" images of war on TV. As a matter of fact, I hate most TV. I pretty much only watch the Comedy Channel and the History Channel. It's no wonder that many Americans hated Vietnam; these were the folks who wouldn't/didn't make sacrifices.
Perhaps (many) we Americans have outgrown war. Perhaps the War mongers in the Pentagon (who have a HUGE investment) realize this and are trying to make it palatable for us. Consider that until the _ENTIRE_ human race feels the same about war as we, we cannot stop production/reseach of war-waging machines. The way to satisfy both needs , the need to wage war (protect ourselves/allies) and the need to spare human American lives, is to use technology.
No I didn't. That's amazing. However, it comes back to my stauch American beleif that if you come to my country, you learn my language. It's kinda the same way that most Frech beleive. Anyway dude, me and Timothy already resolved the issue, what with the interview being over the phone and all.
Wow, a reply from the poster... thats cool;-) It figured; I got that feeling. I guess it's cool that someone actually "spoke" with Lars. In the past it seemed that other "interviews" had been performed via email. I assumed that the Lars interview would be the same. I'd also have assumed that Lars would have read the questions before-hand. I suppose with him being not so "internet savvy," as he likes to call it:-), I shouldn't have expected that either. Just the same I thank you guys,/., for getting the interview.
Dude, the issue here is simple. I'd agree with Lars if he was going after the right person/group. A person who creates anything of value, be it art, code, Jolt, should have the right to hawk it on the Internet at their terms. Lars/Metallica (where's the rest of the band in all these interviews, eh?) and Dre are pissed, and for good reason, that the Masters of un-released music was made available to the World! However, their beef should be with the lowlife scum who brought out these "work's in progess." And Eminems (or however th f*** he spells it) comment last night on "Grand Theft Audio" about kickin Napster's ass should be more (effectively) directed at the asshole who leaked his sh*t.
What Lars et al and Dre are asking is for file-sharing to be deemed illegal, because someone _may_ use it to trade music/art/computer games illegally. Sun, Novell, Micro$oft provide file-sharing services. That could/would put us all out of business. No more Sun, Novell, Microsoft, IBM, blah, blah, blah. What else are you going to do with a computer if you can't share information? Piracy _WILL_NOT_ isn't going to stop based on a new lawsuit; duh. Suing Napster is like suing Novell; Novell doesn't know what I use my servers for and they shouldn't be responsible if I use them for an illegal purpose. That's _MY_ responsibilty; _I_ am the one taking the risk.
Anyway, Metallica and every other band in the industry need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses because the RIAA and the labels are about to stick it to 'em some more. Remember the article about the new law screwing Artists out of their copyrights? Check these links out, as I cannot remember if we saw a posting on slash originally...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why this ad is first appearing overseas? I guess M$haft doesn't want to find out the hard way they've offended thousands of CEO's here in the States as to their new IT stragegy embracing openness.
bob
I can see by rabtech's post here that my comment isnt going to be well received. Call me cynical, but I'd like to think things of this nature are calculated. Remember the Halloween documents! MSFT have always been aware of the geek factor. It's just that as of late, they've learned we are a force with which to be reckoned. I figure they're just doing this to put up another smokescreen. What's coming next?
Bob
I agree with you about things with the exception of the Serial Number issue. I only disagree as Intel marketed the ID to the wrong folks for the wrong reason. They marketed the serial number to you and I, joe consumer; go figure, we're their market. yeah they sell most processors to Compaq and Dell, but in the end, they come to you and I. We had to know what they were up to. They said the ID's would be great for online-purchasing. they must have been idiots to think we wouldn't be concerned with the privacy issue.
on the other hand, had they marketed the CPU's to the software companies and said "look, you can license a piece of software to a single pc," they'd have had some support. but they didnt. Understand, Sun, IBM, and im sure all the other big enterprise hardware companies have and use processor serial numbers for licensing. IBM have been doing it for decades.
Intel's a pretty good technological company, they've just been f*cking up with their marketing as of late. But I blame that on M$. Remember way back when (a few years ago) when you coulndt find a computer-related commercial on TV. Now its almost all we see. As soon as M$ decided to sell computers to Joe Six-pack, the industry has gotten even _more_ stupid.
bob
Gee I guess that means we'll have a few more companies to boycott. I am saddened by all these events. Now of course who really gives two shits about this, since we don't use Windows and ME is of course out of the question.
I thought the Telecommunications act of '96 made leaving commercial ads on your answering machine illegal? It wasn't _all_ bad ;-)
Dude, go figure if these guys (our congress) _wanted_ to pass legalising legislation, they'd never be elected again. Even if pro-legal folks are the majority, we certainly don't have enough money to line their coffers. The rich minority, old-fashioned conservatives are able to do that. And without dough in the coffers, we won't see the wonderful ad-campaigns and noone will know who Dem., Rep, Ind, etc. Joe Blow is at election time. Which means that we (the minority) need to become more educated (perhaps in political or social leadership) and take to the congress ourselves.
Bob
I agree with several of your comments on windows vs. linux. I really hate seeing all this attention on linux coming from M$ turncoats. I for one did not jump on the "linux for everyone" bandwagon; if it fits the bill then use it.
;-)
.02
Linux' strength comes from the fact that there is source code available and that one can get the whole system (source code and all) for free. Persons can also contribute to the system and have other folks help them out finding bugs, adding features or whatever. The BSD's don't make this quite as easy. Solaris, AIX, SCO, Winblows, etc this isn't even an option. Those systems are targetted at people who don't want/can't provide their _own_ solutions. They get a contract (warranty, license whatever) and the vendor deals with their problems.
Unfortunately, the mass media have tapped into the "Linux craze" and fluff it more that most of us want. That's their nature; these are the same folks who don't know the difference between a hacker and a cracker
We can't really do anything to reverse all that has happened, and would we really want to? I think its great to see all these new linux-related companies. They've legitimized using Linux in the workplace; I just don't agree that it needs to replace M$ products at all levels. However, if it makes a better WINS, DNS, Web, whatever server then lets use it. I don't want Joe Dontknownothing buying a system installed with Linux, "just because." M$ have allowed people to be dumb for too long and I personally don't want to deal with those folks. I just want to deal with the people that can help me get _my_ job done quicker/easier with more flexibilty.
well, thats my
Bob
Congress has no idea what goes on in the agencies, haven't you read any of Tom Clancy's work. Realize, he almost got busted by the (one of them, i cant remember) because they were under the impression he was writing about classified material. My point is that even though these agencies receive funding through congress, they (congress) have no idea whats going on inside. Supposedly, that's what over-sight commitees are for. Of course lying is an option, comeon now, they're spy agencies; their JOB is lying.
As for your rant, I totally agree with you. It'll never happen because every day (at the urging of every other oppressive government in the world) the US congress is under pressure to take away our right to bear arms. The majority of people in this country don't care and those that do don't have a voice. If the masses get their drunk, doped-up, stupid asses to the voting booth, they play eenie-meenie-miney-moe and then retreat back to their drunken state.
Come on now, it's not as if the majority of American citizens knew about this system. I can't beleive that the EU is gonna whoop our ass because of some spy systems we didn't even know about. Harldy any of our senators and representative know anything about it. The only thinge we can do at this point is get on our congressmen to cut the intelligence services (yes, plural meaning _all_ the depts) spending. If we get the NSA down to 1million a year, I doubt they'll be able to afford to run the operation ;-) Of course this'll never happen so be prepared to get your ass kicked next time you visit France.
Bob
I dunno man. Consider the community. The fact that we are geeks and net-heads still doesnt satisfy our human need for human relationships. These inter-personal relationships most-times cannot be effectively conducted through wire-transmissions. Sometimes, you gotta get out of the house. What better place than to go to a Linux Show?! I tell ya, I'd go if work would let me take the time off. Even if they don't pay for the trip, it's still worth it. You would've gotten to meet some people and do some networking. Its all good to satisfy those human needs.
Bob
You said it right there Guy. Intent is the key. But to know the intent means you can get into someone's head, which is impossible. You can say I had malicious intent all you want and unless I agree with you you really have no proof because I can just plead the 5th. It's your responsibilty during discovery to find and show facts that can hint at my intent.
The issue that most slashdotters are getting at, whether or not they know it, is "What constitutes Aiding and Abetting?" The RIAA is trying to set precedent such that all file-sharing is made illegal on the premise that file-sharing leads to the illegal distribution of MP3s or The-Next-Big-Thing. There are a lot of companies who will be in trouble if/when these precendents are set; consider M$, Novell, Banyan, (all the) Unix's, etc. They all have the potential to allow someone to pirate music. The only thing is that Napster makes it easier to find music (that I should be able to try before i buy since it costs so damn much). My argument is that the legality of linking should not be in question as the problem is the RIAA and the music industry themselves. Or didn't you read the article that Courtney Love wrote. Oh thats right, my story never got posted.
bob
What we have here are a few lawsuits based on the fundamental right(s) to fair use. Be resonable damnit, there's nothing illegal about a person linking to any information. I have made a conscious decision if I go and download warez or MP3z. I am commiting the illegal act if I don't buy the stuff. (BTW, I would have never re-discovered Jamiriqua if it weren't for MP3s, and YES I HAVE BOUGHT THE CDS, although J will almost surely never see or hear of my thanks for making some jamming music)
If a guy puts up a site with _links_, how is he commiting a crime? That's like saying that Packetstorm or CERT are responsible for every crack that happens to a site. That's like saying that every VCR, cassette tape, CR-R/CD-RW, weapons, drug (legal), paint, etc, etc, etc... manufacturer is responsible whenever his products are used for illegal purposes. When I buy a bottle of shampoo, it says dont take it internally; they've given enough warning not to be liable. Of course, they've only stated the obvious. The thought would never cross the normal-thinking person's mind.
Why can't I buy a DVD and expect it to be viewable in my Linux-based PC? Why can't I download a song by an unsigned artist and decide to pay him/her directly myself? Heaven forbid someone besides the major media-moguls made some money. Whats so bad about me downloading a few mp3's before I go and buy the CD? I tell you what, I was pissed when I bought the Jennifer Lopez CD. Of all the house tracks I'd heard on the radio, I expected to find the CD worth a damn. If only I had downloaded a few songs _before_ shelling the (outrageously over-priced) $17 bucks. Now that's fair use. If the song, program, whatever, is worth a damn (which I can find out in a relatively short amount of time) THEN I'll buy it. To hell with this buy-it, try-it, no-return policy shit.
I know this post has turned into a rant, but I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. What I'm getting at is the site is providing me a service when they point me in the direction (via links) of X,Y,Z. It's _my_ responsibility to Do-The-Right-Thing if those links point to items of questionable legality.
Bob
How about this... Rambus knows they have legally enforcable patents on Rambus DRAM. They have some patents on SDRAM(DDR) that if a dumb judge/patent review board saw them, they might think they are cool. Eventually, someone is going to figure out that the royalty payments on the SDRAM isn't cool, but by that time, Rambus has made the cost of SDRAM so huge that Rambus memory (which they, without question, can enforce) has become the defacto standard and we are thussly held f*cked. Perhaps I'm being too paranoid.
Bob
Beleive me it wasnt brown-nosing in the classic sense. It was more like a statement of respect like one can have for Gates or Jobs; you respect them for where they've come from and gone, not necessarily the tactics they have taken to acheive that status. My statement was "Thanks to Rob for having the vision to create a single focal point for the geek community."
/. However, this site doesnt reflect the feelings of the whole community (could a single site ever acomplish such a feat?). It's this fact that hurts me the most because I contribute, by way of comments, and I feel that I am a part of this site; but the stories _I_ feel important never get posted. The FAQ doesnt say much to make one feel better about it either. At least at K5, you _know_ that _someone_ is reading your potential post, and you can receive some feedback on how to fix it to get it posted.
How many times have you read or seen Slashdot mentioned in news broadcasts? A few, right? That woulnd't have happened if Rob never created
Well, thats my story and I'm stickin' to it.
bob
you sound surprised. there are only a select few who get to do the posting on this site. if you want to see (your own) postings for things which _YOU_ feel are pertinent to the geek community, you need to start your _OWN_ news site. /.-DoS sites ;-)) for having created/(contribute) a focal point for the geek community for the Mass-Media to acknowlege. I just think we need to be a little more open about the kind of stories we want posted here.
-but-
I thank Rob (and those of us who comment and
Bob
Because CSS is a format agreed upon by hundreds of money-hungary (rich) folks _who've got nothing better to do with their time_. Plain and simple, CSS was not a format meant to protect the IP of movies, it was meant as a tool to enforce legal restrictions on copying movies. Heaven forbid a person tryed to watch a DVD on a free OS.
bob
Exactly my point on why they need to be broken up further. However, the judge can/has/will make prescribe that the old business practices can no-longer be followed. there will be a commitee that over-sees what M$x2,3,whatever are up to. If the committee feels they are being assess, more problems for them. We can only hope that some more intelligent mandates come down from which ever court(s) hear the appeal(s).
Bob
The FBI is just trying to get more funding ;-) You all know that every executive enforcement agency is jockeying to be "The" internet defense agency. This is yet another installment of "Look at me, the FBI, I was first on site." I'll bet you the so-called "hackers" Serbian and Badman are actually working for NETSEC in one of those SecureRooms (tm). Keep in mind, like the article says, NETSEC was created by the NSA and DoD. Conspiracy, I think not.
Bob
You must be one of those Micro$erfs. I hope you realize that line is just a piece (of shit) of marketing blabber specificly designed to sound Nice and Cheery (tm). I don't know about you, but I like the idea of (heaven forbid) if I have to re-install that I get to use full-blown application install media so I can choose which pieces of the software I want to re-install.
You realize that every OEM uses that excuse when a piece of software, or hardware for that matter, doesnt work. I was told by Toshiba that I couldn't install a piece of (new) hardware into a notebook without reinstalling NT. I said "Thanks, have a nice day." What Kind of Bullshit (tm) is that, huh?
Regardless of what Bill or any other major-player says, when you go in and buy a piece of software you're buying something tangible, right? Tangible in the sense that it has function and you can use it. It's not tangible like a hammer, but how many things in the computer industry are. How can a company charge 1000+ dollars for a piece of software and EXPECT their client not to think they own it. That's just plain ludicrisy. What's being suggested is that a billion+ people are going to have to be brainwashed of the idea that when they spend loots of hard-earned money that they _AREN'T_ buying anything tangible. That's not gonna happen.
We need to chill out, guys and gals, because pretty soon the Courts are going to once again remember the little guy. Laws are meant to protect us too, you know. The courts have long-upheld fair-use. If (court) decisions are made that put the law on the side of the software manufacturers, you can best beleive that there'll be some new judges being instated.
BTW, at least back in the day when Cpq made you use 50 floppies to save the app install, you GOT the app install disks, it wasn't no crippled (tm) bullshit.
Bob
Bob
No, I think he's saying "Put up or shut up." It was an excellent article and I'll prolly go buy the book. There _IS_ a moral side to war, which we Americans seem to have forgotten. Some of that, I'm sure, comes from the fact that war has become to "commercialized." Personally, I'm tired of seeing "graphic" images of war on TV. As a matter of fact, I hate most TV. I pretty much only watch the Comedy Channel and the History Channel. It's no wonder that many Americans hated Vietnam; these were the folks who wouldn't/didn't make sacrifices.
Perhaps (many) we Americans have outgrown war. Perhaps the War mongers in the Pentagon (who have a HUGE investment) realize this and are trying to make it palatable for us. Consider that until the _ENTIRE_ human race feels the same about war as we, we cannot stop production/reseach of war-waging machines. The way to satisfy both needs , the need to wage war (protect ourselves/allies) and the need to spare human American lives, is to use technology.
just something to ponder
bob
No I didn't. That's amazing. However, it comes back to my stauch American beleif that if you come to my country, you learn my language. It's kinda the same way that most Frech beleive. Anyway dude, me and Timothy already resolved the issue, what with the interview being over the phone and all.
Bob
Wow, a reply from the poster... thats cool ;-) It figured; I got that feeling. I guess it's cool that someone actually "spoke" with Lars. In the past it seemed that other "interviews" had been performed via email. I assumed that the Lars interview would be the same. I'd also have assumed that Lars would have read the questions before-hand. I suppose with him being not so "internet savvy," as he likes to call it :-), I shouldn't have expected that either. Just the same I thank you guys, /., for getting the interview.
Bob
Dude, the issue here is simple. I'd agree with Lars if he was going after the right person/group. A person who creates anything of value, be it art, code, Jolt, should have the right to hawk it on the Internet at their terms. Lars/Metallica (where's the rest of the band in all these interviews, eh?) and Dre are pissed, and for good reason, that the Masters of un-released music was made available to the World! However, their beef should be with the lowlife scum who brought out these "work's in progess." And Eminems (or however th f*** he spells it) comment last night on "Grand Theft Audio" about kickin Napster's ass should be more (effectively) directed at the asshole who leaked his sh*t.
/article.php3?sid=20000510085939
What Lars et al and Dre are asking is for file-sharing to be deemed illegal, because someone _may_ use it to trade music/art/computer games illegally. Sun, Novell, Micro$oft provide file-sharing services. That could/would put us all out of business. No more Sun, Novell, Microsoft, IBM, blah, blah, blah. What else are you going to do with a computer if you can't share information? Piracy _WILL_NOT_ isn't going to stop based on a new lawsuit; duh. Suing Napster is like suing Novell; Novell doesn't know what I use my servers for and they shouldn't be responsible if I use them for an illegal purpose. That's _MY_ responsibilty; _I_ am the one taking the risk.
Anyway, Metallica and every other band in the industry need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses because the RIAA and the labels are about to stick it to 'em some more. Remember the article about the new law screwing Artists out of their copyrights? Check these links out, as I cannot remember if we saw a posting on slash originally...
http://www.theswindle.com
http://wallofsound.go.c om/news/stories/donhenley050900.html
Tell everyone you know. I am actually surprised no question was posted to Lars about this news.
my 0.02
Bob
hehe... oops, sorry. I misspelled "english." Damn me.