You mean if they knew who they were and could get them to communicate without using form letters?
And also, what happens if the "damage" done in taking the content down is greater than the $25,000 they could theoretically win after a long protracted court battle with lawyers and appeals?
There is a point about the DMCA that may be worth considering, on a personal level, one-by-one, consumer by consumer...
You don't have to buy into it.
Really, you don't.
Its your choice whether you wear the shackles. In fact, its your choice whether you PAY to wear the shackles. The DMCA movement isn't free. Ironically, it isn't being "foisted upon you", it's being SOLD to you.
And you're BUYING it.
Or not.
You see, its really your choice whether DMCA lives or dies.
The power is in YOUR hands, and in your wallet.
Just say "NO" to the DMCA and it will whither away and die like so many other grand plans before it. You don't HAVE to buy that new CD. You don't HAVE to buy that new song download. You don't HAVE to buy iPODs or use iTunes, or Windows Vista, or any of the other garbage the manufacturers are putting out these days to embed and enforce the DMCA.
You can just say "NO".
You can CHOOSE to not buy it.
You can walk away from it.
You can tell your friends not to buy it.
Eventually, if enough people stop buying into the DMCA, the manufacturers will stop pushing it. They don't give a rat's ass about the DMCA, they just care about the almighty dollar. If their products aren't selling their profits will drop. If their profits drop, they'll stop selling what they're selling and start selling something else. That's how it works. We demand, they manufacture. They deliver, we consume. That's the deal. If we don't like what they're pushing, don't buy it.
The DMCA is a VAST unspoken conspiracy between a number of high-level players, including to the degree that they're duped into it, the United States Congress. The conspiracy is to redefine the nature of "media" and "content" and the ideas of "copyright", "fair use", and "ownership", so that a handful of powerful consortiums-- for example, the RIAA and MPAA, but there are others such as Sony, Microsoft, HP, and many, many more-- will benefit wildly from the new content and usage restrictions, and be able to make you pay and pay and pay and pay over and over every time you want to hear music, or watch a movie, or anything else you want to do.
Here's a question-- in the Information age, what ISN'T content?
See?
That's the problem.
Just about anything that you can share, exchange, consider, or talk about is "content" in some form or other. And the WAY that you share it, talk about it, whatever-- is a "medium" which, except for face-to-face communication-- requires "media" to effect.
THAT'S what the conspiracy is all about. THAT'S what these big consortiums want to control. THAT'S where they plan to push you over the barrel and fuck you up the ass-- forever and without the benefit of lubricant.
But they don't have to get together in a back room to collude on this one. This idea is so big.... this method of "sticking it to the masses" is so awe-inspiringly-massive... that all they have to do is embed their individual piece of it into the hardware and software that you use to communicate and exchange ideas, do a little lobbying here and there to get Congress to go along-- and voila! Total consumer fuck. They win for a very long time and you lose.
You have little ideas.
You have tiny brain.
You have selfish interest.
You don't care what happens tomorrow.
You just want to use your DCMA toys and media RIGHT NOW and to hell with what it means in the larger view.
You will wake up one day in their world, bound to their command, and playing their tune (which you bought, downloaded, and installed faithfully on your DMCA gadget) and will be stuck paying through the nose and miserable until you die.
Or...
You can think about this, make up your own mind, and if you want freedom, if you want exchange, if you want control over your own ability to communicate and exchange ideas and anything else-- you can wake up to what's happening. You can say NO GODDAMNIT, NO!!! You can walk away. You can change
Logitech is the same way, I bought a wireless keyboard/mouse combination and after about a year the mouse quit working (would go one direction but not the other, don't recall which direction). I contacted Logitech for support and somehow in the conversation it came out that I was using it on Linux... INSTANT discommunication! They came back with "We don't support this product under Linux". Nevermind the fact that it had worked perfectly for the previous year. Nevermind the fact that I didn't have to load up any special drivers to get it to work-- I just plugged it in and did the little radio sync thing and it worked fine. Because, and ONLY because, I was using LINUX, they refused to support their product.
My reaction? After having a few choice words for their support folks-- FUCK 'em. I haven't bought another Logitech item since. Which, while they may not consider that to be a huge loss, in the intervening time, I've bought 3 systems for my parents, 2 for my wife's parents, 7 or 8 for my wife and I, a system for my brother, and one for my grandmother. Every one of them needed keyboards, mice, speakers and other stuff that Logitech sells. And until their "Screw You" attitude towards Linux, I have always been happy with Logitech products. So they're missing out many times-to-one, IMO.
My own personal beliefs/value-system vacillates between the notion of protecting the creator/inventor/writer/whatever in some way as a reward for giving society something new (be it a book, gadget, song, whatever) and the notion that "information wants to be free". And of course, in real life this generally means: "When _I_ create something, I want protection and some sort of reward, but when I _want_ something, I want it to be free (to me)." And that, I think, is the dual edge upon which this issue lies. People have a hard time understanding (innately) how an idea, song, poem, or any work of pure-knowledge _cannot_ be free. If, for example, I go up to the author and ask, he's very likely to just _tell me_ personally (gratis, for free), after which _I_ will know. And if I then go tell someone else then _they_ will know. And if they tell someone else, etc. In that sense, a book (let's say to keep it simple) is just an "idea amplifier", in a sense, in that it permits many people to be exposed to the book's (and by extension, the author's) ideas and concepts. So in a very basic and fundamental way, the book is nothing more than a method to permit the author to reach a larger audience than s/he could reach personally. On the other hand, let's take another idea-- that of a performance-- where people pay to be allowed to see/hear/be exposed to one or more people who then expose them to some sort of experience: musical, literary, dramatic, whatever. In my experience I have rarely heard anybody espouse that a performance ought to be free. People seem to innately recognize that that group of (one or more) people deserve to be rewarded in some manner for their effort. Finally there is the type of information that is only obtained at great cost and sacrifice-- scientific discovery, medical research, weapons research, covert information obtained through spycraft or torture, etc. This type of information certainly is not free and great care is taken in most instances to guard its dissemination and to control its application for the advantage and purposes of the information-holder.
So what is the take-away here? Is information free or isn't it? What is the difference between an author writing a book and a performance? What constitutes personal cost and sacrifice? What right does the audience have to a performer's work? Can you go listen to Bill Cosby or Jerry Seinfeld and then go out the next night and duplicate the act on-stage for money? What about performing excerpts from the act for the guys around the water-cooler the next day? What about reporting the show in the newspaper, can you relate the act word-for-word, or even insert a complete recording of the performance so that all the readers of the paper can view the performance without having to attend?.... or reenumerate the performers? So what about a lecture where the actual purpose is to disseminate information while at the same time rewarding the speaker for his time, cost-of-obtaining the knowledge, etc? In that instance the whole point _IS_ to take away knowledge and presumably the information is then "free" to be shared and used in whatever way the audience participant chooses. S/he can tell a friend, two friends, or ten-thousand friends. However, at some point the original lecturer may feel infringed upon and want some sort of mediation or injunction to stop or slow-down the spread of the information. Would s/he be right in asking? Is it right for someone who attends a lecture to turn around and use their potentially-greater powers of dissemination to spread the knowledge at a greater rate than the original lecturer/performer? What separates the information from the artist or performer who reveals it? What right does a member of the audience have to that information?
What about a historical work? What about a recording of a performance which occurred many, many years ago and now all the original performers are dead, any publishers involved are out-of-business, and any members of the original audien
"Copyright and patent laws are means by which a 3rd party, namely you, is granted power (and by that I mean power to inflict pain and suffering) over other people's private property, so that their private property isn't entirely theirs anymore."
What is this pain and suffering? First of all, a book is an inanimate object, and cannot feel pain. Secondly, aside from ripping the book in half, how would you inflict any suffering on it? This part of the rhetoric is empty.
Well.... you could hit someone with it...
I don't see how removing the copyrighting system will help anybody, authors or publishers. Your original assertion that UPLOADING the work to the Internet (as someone who does NOT own the work and/or is NOT entitled to some portion of its proceeds) is wrong. An author has the right to control the work's dissemination and should have reasonable protection on its being copied, both literally and to a lesser degree in derivative works. I think the original copyrighting system we (America) has had in place was a pretty good one. It wasn't until computers came along that gave us the ability to have works published in an electronic medium, and the Internet came along that provided a very large (worldwide even) distribution system for those works that the system of copyrighting we used to have didn't work any more.
Since that time, nothing has changed. Authors haven't changed, publishers haven't changed, the people reading the books haven't changed-- only the methods of distribution available have changed. Authors write books for any of the following reasons (probably several): because the love the subject, want to educate (or entertain), get money for writing the book, and/or acclaim for being the book's author. Publishers distribute the book because they believe that the book has enough potential readership (meaning, people who will buy the book) to turn a useful profit which they can then share with the author via whatever contract they have in place. The reading public purchases the book because it seems interesting, relays information about some subject or topic they were interested in, or because the book is able to entertain them in some manner.
Libraries have always been a problem however in the copyrighting system. A library is a place where one agency (the library) can purchase the book and permit many (potentially unlimited) numbers of people to read it without further compensation to either the publisher or the original author. So in that sense, libraries have always been in violation of the covenant between author, publisher, and the book-buying public. And conversely, authors and publishers have always had to accept libraries as a type of "cost of doing business" and a "business risk" -- ie, hope fervently that the book-buying public isn't going to suddenly trade in their wallets in favor of their library cards. That would be bad!
So now we have the ability to disseminate books via electronic means, and the Internet as a world-wide platform from which to do it. Here's the thorny question: What is the Internet? Is it a medium to exchange knowledge and ideas? Is it a medium for commerce? Is it a platform for fun and games? Is it a library? Is it a method to share a book or some music with a friend? How about two friends? Ten friends? Ten-Thousand friends? How do authors and publishers maintain their respective rights to control the spread and dissemination of their works and collect the monies they are entitled to collect as the owners and agents of the various works? To what degree is the book-buying public bound to view such items are copyright-able works? And put the other way, to what degree must authors and publishers view the Internet as being a very large library? Or a collection of libraries?
THESE are the questions without answers. THIS is where the friction lies between authors, publishers, book-buyers, book-readers, technologists, free-loaders, and thieves. It will take time, and all sides will be heard, either directly-- online or in various me
In establishing the notion of Premium Content, Microsoft and other Premium Content stakeholders (notably the RIAA and MPAA organizations), have attempted to place limitations on the "Fair Use', "mediums of distribution", time limits, and other rather reasonable restrictions on the End User. However practical, this agreement has been somewhat one-sided and there has been no universal, standardized method in place to codify End-User agreement and intention to comply. So this document attempts to establish the concept of "Premium Dollars" which can be used to purchase "Premium Content" and thus bind distributor and end-user together in a "Premium Contract".
The various Premium Content providers are mainly concerned with the ability to control distribution, ensure the end-user purchases duly-licensed copies for use on every possible method of distribution and to ensure the end-user purchase at least one or more copies in the potential event that they might ever conceivably loan a copy of that media to a friend. These "friend" copies, as we'll call them, should also be purchased for every conceivable media distribution method, and a special "Premium Content Insurance Policy" created in case a medium of distribution is invented to protect the end-user from potential liabilities to viewing, hearing or otherwise consuming content that the end-user does not yet have a license for. Examples might include watching a new type of TV at a friend's house, going to see a 3D digitally-encoded movie in a newly developed "in-the-round" theater, etc.
In accordance with this new "Premium Content Contract", a new type of currency shall be developed to bind the distributor to the rights and wishes of the consumer. For example, the currency given to the Premium Content distributor cannot be used to ship American jobs overseas. It cannot be used to pay for attorneys or lobbying congress. Nor may it be used to compensate executives in excess of standardized, scale salary plans where, for example, the top-executive may receive no more than 11-to-1 compensation as the lowest paid worker in the organization. Additionally, these Premium Currency dollars may not be used to fund sweat factories in unknown lands, be transferred to off-shore banks or un-numbered Swiss bank accounts. They may not be used to buy drugs, hookers, or pay off gambling debts.
Furthermore these dollars may only be used by the store or franchise to which they're given. They may not be transferred, given, or passed-along by any means to a third party without giving additional "Premium Content" rights to the original consumer. They may be placed one-time in one bank that is registered to that Premium Content distributor, and is also on the "Financial Institutions Approved List" put together by the "Premium Currency Consumer Protection Review Board". The Premium Content may not be further transferred by the Premium Distributor or assigned to any other person or organization.
I don't mean this in a mean-spirited manner-- but what kind of hardware are you using???
I've been running Linux on my systems for YEARS -- since the early 90's without much problem with drivers. Sure some here and there, but certainly no more (and probably no less) than I've had with Microsoft platforms. Occassionally I have to wait a little for a driver to get written or stable for Linux, but that's because the mfgrs tend to concentrate on Microsoft and Mac and leave poor Linux to fend for itself-- though generally it does tend to fend for itself pretty well... The only area I've been really disapointed is Multimedia-- getting drivers and codecs and the like so I can use my Linux box in a similar manner that I might use my windows box-- to watch DVD's, listen to music, etc. And even that is doable and the out-of-the-box experience is also improving considerably. My last installation of Mandriva 2007 had a lot of that built-in.
I'm not sure what Microsoft's goal really is. By giving me a choice-- and _respecting_ my choices-- they are _far more likely_ to encourage me to choose Microsoft at least some of the time. By acting the bully they tend to put me off to their stuff no matter how good (or bad) it operates.
Yes, but it took Microsoft 20 years to reach their pinnacle. Linux is still gathering momentum, and there's no rule that says it has to achieve dominance in the same style or in the same length of time it took Microsoft. I firmly believe Microsoft is a dinosaur. They have one winning strategy (IMO) and that is to adopt Linux as their underlying OS. Port "Windows" over to it, however they have to do that, and whatever it becomes-- as a windowing manager. Then they can port their apps over. Screw backwards compatibility. For the three people still using DOS, get vmware or whatever. The apps will probably get a huge performance boost in the process anyway.:) They can even continue to sell their stuff if they want to-- I'd probably even buy it. My biggest beef with Microsoft isn't really their apps, its with their "OS" and with the strong-armed, underhanded way they have muscled everyone else out of the business.
Linux as a Microsoft-Killer? Not hardly. Microsoft is well entrenched and firmly established in most of the major (read: able to pay) markets around the world. It will take awhile to unseat them, if indeed it is able to. But regardless of that-- it _is_ a growing force who's power is on the rise, however slowly that may be. And it is growing in power politically too. Ten years ago Microsoft was able to easily swat aside any talk that Linux could ever be any kind of threat. Today Microsoft is actively working in many settings both overtly and covertly to sabotage its future. Bill Gates was wrong about the Internet. He was wrong about the Web. He and Microsoft are working hard to not underestimate Linux (and Google) as potential threats and are pulling out all the stops to do anything possible to kill it while its young.
Apps? Yes, I agree about that-- Apps would make a huge difference. And I think that the biggest reason you don't see the major established apps ported to Linux is pure politics and pressure from Microsoft. They say stuff like "not enough market base" but that's bullshit. There was a time that Microsoft didn't have enough of a base, or Apple, or OS/2 or half-a-dozen other OS's... and manufacturers ported apps to THOSE platforms. Its not the user base, its the political climate. So again I point to MS's stranglehold on the industry. All you people "poo-pooing" the rise of Linux-- you're saying this stifling of competition and open standards is a good thing????
Microsoft has demonstrated time after time after time after time that they will distort and pervert any standard that emerges and leverage their position as the predominant platform to stifle the competition. This is one of those issues that it depends on who's viewpoint you're using-- from a Microsoft-centric vantage it is a completely reasonable thing to do. They perceive their job as to continue to enhance the business and grow wealth and revenue from the shareholders. From everybody else's point-of-view though, its the 10-bajillion-pound gorilla problem.
The promise of Linux hasn't been wasted by any measure, IMO. It simply hasn't coalesced into its full force yet.
Since we now know that Microsoft is willing (nay, obsessed) to go "to the mat", as it were, the Linux strategy should be to exploit this tendancy as often as possible. If it happens often enough, either it will become an un-tenable situation for Microsoft, wherein after Microsoft will no longer be able to make any kind of TCO statements regarding Linux vs. Microsoft; and/or else they will go broke in all these no-profit deals (okay, admittedly, it will take them awhile to go broke... but it could happen!:)
If nothing else, these documents reveal _very_ publically (what many of us already knew) that Microsoft is scared SHITLESS of Linux.
Why should the market leader (a monopolistic, strong-arming, dirty-tricks, no-holds-barred leader at that!) be scared of a FREE operating system and open-source applications-- unless they can see that their dominant position is deeply threatened?
Maybe Balmer will throw some more chairs at somebody. Better be prepared to duck fast.
I wonder what business Microsoft will get into after computers, software and IT?:)
More sludge from MS to keep you broke and miserable.
Just say "No Thanks, Vista's not for me."
(For all you Troll-spotters out there-- I just thought I'd say preemptively that this is NOT a troll, this is my OPINION-- there is a difference. So go take your troll-hating self someplace else and leave my post alone)
Yup, that's a sure-fire method. It'll stop spammer's in their tracks. Spammers are such a dull, plodding, unimaginative lot that they'll never think of trying secondary MX records. Good shooting there Hoss!
I think people should just pay Microsoft (and Apple and the others) with Money that has restrictions on it... Here, you can have this money but you can't use it to sue anybody with it, or buy a ferrari. If you do decide to sue, the lawyer will show up late and sleep through the trial, and the ferrari will have a bum paint job and break down conspicuously on the side of the highway every 15 minutes.
Wonder what those people would find out about the management and shareholder types if THEY had to go through background checks and be accountable to the people they manage...???
Anymore closet Ken Lays or Bernie Ebbers out there??
They caused more damage, cost more money, ripped-off more people (workers, shareholders, and average-joes) than ALL of the others, times 10 raised to the 53 power... and then some.
I say conduct all the background checks you want-- but let's start at the top and find out who's really running these shows.
Plus lawyers are more plentiful than bees so it wouldn't present any strain on the ecosystem... smart AND environmentally-friendly. Its win-win all around.
I can say first and foremost the biggest obstacle to emmigrating to England/UK are your immigration policies. You all are apparently okay with letting practically the whole world into England __EXCEPT__ for Americans. They're good for Yankee tourist dollars and then they're supposed to go home. I'd like very much to live and work in England. Maybe not for the rest of my life perhaps, but definitely for 5-10 years.
These guidelines are intended for US citizens wishing to work in the United Kingdom.
Employment Requiring Work Permits Before entering Britain to take up employment, American citizens must have a work permit. The Immigration & Nationality Directorate administers the Work Permit Scheme. Exceptions are made only for the categories of permit-free employment outlined below.
Application for the work permit must be made by the prospective employer in Britain. Individuals cannot apply for a work permit on their own behalf. Applications must be made by the Britain-based employer.
Avoid the constraints of the EULA-- use someone else's copy on someone else's machine. They can't hold you to provisoins of the software if you're not the owner. Then you can publish all the benchmarks you want. MS might have a case against the owner, but not with you.
To think that the military can trust foreign nationals not to monkey with code and put hidden back-doors or special triggers into the software is highly suspect.... Especially considering that Americans can't even get voting machines made by _domestic_ companies that are proven trustworthy and without back-doors, hidden triggers, or other security compromises.
On the other hand-- I'd say the final extent of engaging in such folly is ultimately self-limiting since it is highly likely that these Republican cretins that are ruining our country and selling it down the river will one day end up, likely as not, staring down the barrel of one of their own creations. How would that be for penultimate poetic justice?
What they should really do is arrest congress for allowing our country's security to degenerate into such a sad state of affairs. The Republicans are the worst scumbags but the democrats aren't much better. I'm so sick and tired and fed up with this kindergarten congress, imbecilic president and looney-tunes administration that it makes me just want to puke.
I sincerely hope and pray that on election day the american public goes to the polls and that we have a blockbuster record-setting turnout, and that everyone who's eligible to vote sends one crystal-clear message: If they're in, vote 'em out.
Americans are absolutely fed up with political prevarication and pandering to greedy corporations and special interest groups. They should just round 'em all up and send 'em down to Gitmo and swallow the key. And if Bush and Cheney like waterboarding so damned much, let them be the first to volunteer when the people come looking for answers to why our country is so incredibly f*cked-up, what happened to our rights and freedoms, and where did they misplace the fricken constitution...
And dunk 'em good until they fess up that they lied to us about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction so they could invade Iraq and grab its oil fields and invaded afghanistan so they could build a pipeline. And then they can tell us about all these no-bid sweetheart deals to Halliburten and why on earth did they have to spend us into oblivion?
With this administration and congress-- frankly I can't tell anymore who the terrorists really are. I'm just sick of all of it-- vote 'em out, vote 'em out-- Vote 'em OUT!
And goddamn good riddance I say.
(And for the fuckwad that's gonna mod me down as a troll-- Trolls are supposed to have free-speech rights too. Or at least they used to have until this batch got into office.)
>> Originally the term PC meant Personal Computer, until IBM named there personal computer a PC. Sort of like Microsoft naming their operating system Windows.
Uh, don't you mean sorta like Microsoft naming their Windows an "Operating System"?
Just think of all the great p0rN you can view with one of these things... you know, all those dark recesses and everything. And haven't we all wondered what was happening in the rest of the room, away from the lights??? And... well, uh... you know.... other stuff too:)
I wish they were still around. I still play some of their games-- Civ Call to Power being one of my favs, and also Railroad Tycoon II. I bought some of their other games too just to try and support a Linux-oriented game-maker but evidently they couldn't live on just my purchases alone...:( Pity. I really like playing games on my Linux box. I have much better hardware there than on any of my windows boxes which always get my Linux hand-me downs. I'm not a huge game-player in general, but I am a sucker for strategy games. I wish more game-makers would write/port stuff for Linux. Especially if they are writing and porting to other platforms. Porting to Linux isn't THAT hard. Seriously. Its all politics, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean if they knew who they were and could get them to communicate without using form letters?
And also, what happens if the "damage" done in taking the content down is greater than the $25,000 they could theoretically win after a long protracted court battle with lawyers and appeals?
There is a point about the DMCA that may be worth considering, on a personal level, one-by-one, consumer by consumer...
You don't have to buy into it.
Really, you don't.
Its your choice whether you wear the shackles. In fact, its your choice whether you PAY to wear the shackles. The DMCA movement isn't free. Ironically, it isn't being "foisted upon you", it's being SOLD to you.
And you're BUYING it.
Or not.
You see, its really your choice whether DMCA lives or dies.
The power is in YOUR hands, and in your wallet.
Just say "NO" to the DMCA and it will whither away and die like so many other grand plans before it. You don't HAVE to buy that new CD. You don't HAVE to buy that new song download. You don't HAVE to buy iPODs or use iTunes, or Windows Vista, or any of the other garbage the manufacturers are putting out these days to embed and enforce the DMCA.
You can just say "NO".
You can CHOOSE to not buy it.
You can walk away from it.
You can tell your friends not to buy it.
Eventually, if enough people stop buying into the DMCA, the manufacturers will stop pushing it. They don't give a rat's ass about the DMCA, they just care about the almighty dollar. If their products aren't selling their profits will drop. If their profits drop, they'll stop selling what they're selling and start selling something else. That's how it works. We demand, they manufacture. They deliver, we consume. That's the deal. If we don't like what they're pushing, don't buy it.
The DMCA is a VAST unspoken conspiracy between a number of high-level players, including to the degree that they're duped into it, the United States Congress. The conspiracy is to redefine the nature of "media" and "content" and the ideas of "copyright", "fair use", and "ownership", so that a handful of powerful consortiums-- for example, the RIAA and MPAA, but there are others such as Sony, Microsoft, HP, and many, many more-- will benefit wildly from the new content and usage restrictions, and be able to make you pay and pay and pay and pay over and over every time you want to hear music, or watch a movie, or anything else you want to do.
Here's a question-- in the Information age, what ISN'T content?
See?
That's the problem.
Just about anything that you can share, exchange, consider, or talk about is "content" in some form or other. And the WAY that you share it, talk about it, whatever-- is a "medium" which, except for face-to-face communication-- requires "media" to effect.
THAT'S what the conspiracy is all about. THAT'S what these big consortiums want to control. THAT'S where they plan to push you over the barrel and fuck you up the ass-- forever and without the benefit of lubricant.
But they don't have to get together in a back room to collude on this one. This idea is so big.... this method of "sticking it to the masses" is so awe-inspiringly-massive... that all they have to do is embed their individual piece of it into the hardware and software that you use to communicate and exchange ideas, do a little lobbying here and there to get Congress to go along-- and voila! Total consumer fuck. They win for a very long time and you lose.
You have little ideas.
You have tiny brain.
You have selfish interest.
You don't care what happens tomorrow.
You just want to use your DCMA toys and media RIGHT NOW and to hell with what it means in the larger view.
You will wake up one day in their world, bound to their command, and playing their tune (which you bought, downloaded, and installed faithfully on your DMCA gadget) and will be stuck paying through the nose and miserable until you die.
Or...
You can think about this, make up your own mind, and if you want freedom, if you want exchange, if you want control over your own ability to communicate and exchange ideas and anything else-- you can wake up to what's happening. You can say NO GODDAMNIT, NO!!! You can walk away. You can change
Logitech is the same way, I bought a wireless keyboard/mouse combination and after about a year the mouse quit working (would go one direction but not the other, don't recall which direction). I contacted Logitech for support and somehow in the conversation it came out that I was using it on Linux... INSTANT discommunication! They came back with "We don't support this product under Linux". Nevermind the fact that it had worked perfectly for the previous year. Nevermind the fact that I didn't have to load up any special drivers to get it to work-- I just plugged it in and did the little radio sync thing and it worked fine. Because, and ONLY because, I was using LINUX, they refused to support their product.
My reaction? After having a few choice words for their support folks-- FUCK 'em. I haven't bought another Logitech item since. Which, while they may not consider that to be a huge loss, in the intervening time, I've bought 3 systems for my parents, 2 for my wife's parents, 7 or 8 for my wife and I, a system for my brother, and one for my grandmother. Every one of them needed keyboards, mice, speakers and other stuff that Logitech sells. And until their "Screw You" attitude towards Linux, I have always been happy with Logitech products. So they're missing out many times-to-one, IMO.
Thank you for your point-of-view and your posts, I really enjoyed and valued them! I'm glad to have the information... uh, for free!
I particularly thank you for the pointers to the Austrian Economics books, they're interesting!
A very interesting reply, thanks!
.... or reenumerate the performers? So what about a lecture where the actual purpose is to disseminate information while at the same time rewarding the speaker for his time, cost-of-obtaining the knowledge, etc? In that instance the whole point _IS_ to take away knowledge and presumably the information is then "free" to be shared and used in whatever way the audience participant chooses. S/he can tell a friend, two friends, or ten-thousand friends. However, at some point the original lecturer may feel infringed upon and want some sort of mediation or injunction to stop or slow-down the spread of the information. Would s/he be right in asking? Is it right for someone who attends a lecture to turn around and use their potentially-greater powers of dissemination to spread the knowledge at a greater rate than the original lecturer/performer? What separates the information from the artist or performer who reveals it? What right does a member of the audience have to that information?
My own personal beliefs/value-system vacillates between the notion of protecting the creator/inventor/writer/whatever in some way as a reward for giving society something new (be it a book, gadget, song, whatever) and the notion that "information wants to be free". And of course, in real life this generally means: "When _I_ create something, I want protection and some sort of reward, but when I _want_ something, I want it to be free (to me)." And that, I think, is the dual edge upon which this issue lies. People have a hard time understanding (innately) how an idea, song, poem, or any work of pure-knowledge _cannot_ be free. If, for example, I go up to the author and ask, he's very likely to just _tell me_ personally (gratis, for free), after which _I_ will know. And if I then go tell someone else then _they_ will know. And if they tell someone else, etc. In that sense, a book (let's say to keep it simple) is just an "idea amplifier", in a sense, in that it permits many people to be exposed to the book's (and by extension, the author's) ideas and concepts. So in a very basic and fundamental way, the book is nothing more than a method to permit the author to reach a larger audience than s/he could reach personally. On the other hand, let's take another idea-- that of a performance-- where people pay to be allowed to see/hear/be exposed to one or more people who then expose them to some sort of experience: musical, literary, dramatic, whatever. In my experience I have rarely heard anybody espouse that a performance ought to be free. People seem to innately recognize that that group of (one or more) people deserve to be rewarded in some manner for their effort. Finally there is the type of information that is only obtained at great cost and sacrifice-- scientific discovery, medical research, weapons research, covert information obtained through spycraft or torture, etc. This type of information certainly is not free and great care is taken in most instances to guard its dissemination and to control its application for the advantage and purposes of the information-holder.
So what is the take-away here? Is information free or isn't it? What is the difference between an author writing a book and a performance? What constitutes personal cost and sacrifice? What right does the audience have to a performer's work? Can you go listen to Bill Cosby or Jerry Seinfeld and then go out the next night and duplicate the act on-stage for money? What about performing excerpts from the act for the guys around the water-cooler the next day? What about reporting the show in the newspaper, can you relate the act word-for-word, or even insert a complete recording of the performance so that all the readers of the paper can view the performance without having to attend?
What about a historical work? What about a recording of a performance which occurred many, many years ago and now all the original performers are dead, any publishers involved are out-of-business, and any members of the original audien
"Copyright and patent laws are means by which a 3rd party, namely you, is granted power (and by that I mean power to inflict pain and suffering) over other people's private property, so that their private property isn't entirely theirs anymore."
What is this pain and suffering? First of all, a book is an inanimate object, and cannot feel pain. Secondly, aside from ripping the book in half, how would you inflict any suffering on it? This part of the rhetoric is empty.
Well.... you could hit someone with it...
I don't see how removing the copyrighting system will help anybody, authors or publishers. Your original assertion that UPLOADING the work to the Internet (as someone who does NOT own the work and/or is NOT entitled to some portion of its proceeds) is wrong. An author has the right to control the work's dissemination and should have reasonable protection on its being copied, both literally and to a lesser degree in derivative works. I think the original copyrighting system we (America) has had in place was a pretty good one. It wasn't until computers came along that gave us the ability to have works published in an electronic medium, and the Internet came along that provided a very large (worldwide even) distribution system for those works that the system of copyrighting we used to have didn't work any more.
Since that time, nothing has changed. Authors haven't changed, publishers haven't changed, the people reading the books haven't changed-- only the methods of distribution available have changed. Authors write books for any of the following reasons (probably several): because the love the subject, want to educate (or entertain), get money for writing the book, and/or acclaim for being the book's author. Publishers distribute the book because they believe that the book has enough potential readership (meaning, people who will buy the book) to turn a useful profit which they can then share with the author via whatever contract they have in place. The reading public purchases the book because it seems interesting, relays information about some subject or topic they were interested in, or because the book is able to entertain them in some manner.
Libraries have always been a problem however in the copyrighting system. A library is a place where one agency (the library) can purchase the book and permit many (potentially unlimited) numbers of people to read it without further compensation to either the publisher or the original author. So in that sense, libraries have always been in violation of the covenant between author, publisher, and the book-buying public. And conversely, authors and publishers have always had to accept libraries as a type of "cost of doing business" and a "business risk" -- ie, hope fervently that the book-buying public isn't going to suddenly trade in their wallets in favor of their library cards. That would be bad!
So now we have the ability to disseminate books via electronic means, and the Internet as a world-wide platform from which to do it. Here's the thorny question: What is the Internet? Is it a medium to exchange knowledge and ideas? Is it a medium for commerce? Is it a platform for fun and games? Is it a library? Is it a method to share a book or some music with a friend? How about two friends? Ten friends? Ten-Thousand friends? How do authors and publishers maintain their respective rights to control the spread and dissemination of their works and collect the monies they are entitled to collect as the owners and agents of the various works? To what degree is the book-buying public bound to view such items are copyright-able works? And put the other way, to what degree must authors and publishers view the Internet as being a very large library? Or a collection of libraries?
THESE are the questions without answers. THIS is where the friction lies between authors, publishers, book-buyers, book-readers, technologists, free-loaders, and thieves. It will take time, and all sides will be heard, either directly-- online or in various me
Premium Dollars
In establishing the notion of Premium Content, Microsoft and other Premium Content stakeholders (notably the RIAA and MPAA organizations), have attempted to place limitations on the "Fair Use', "mediums of distribution", time limits, and other rather reasonable restrictions on the End User. However practical, this agreement has been somewhat one-sided and there has been no universal, standardized method in place to codify End-User agreement and intention to comply. So this document attempts to establish the concept of "Premium Dollars" which can be used to purchase "Premium Content" and thus bind distributor and end-user together in a "Premium Contract".
The various Premium Content providers are mainly concerned with the ability to control distribution, ensure the end-user purchases duly-licensed copies for use on every possible method of distribution and to ensure the end-user purchase at least one or more copies in the potential event that they might ever conceivably loan a copy of that media to a friend. These "friend" copies, as we'll call them, should also be purchased for every conceivable media distribution method, and a special "Premium Content Insurance Policy" created in case a medium of distribution is invented to protect the end-user from potential liabilities to viewing, hearing or otherwise consuming content that the end-user does not yet have a license for. Examples might include watching a new type of TV at a friend's house, going to see a 3D digitally-encoded movie in a newly developed "in-the-round" theater, etc.
In accordance with this new "Premium Content Contract", a new type of currency shall be developed to bind the distributor to the rights and wishes of the consumer. For example, the currency given to the Premium Content distributor cannot be used to ship American jobs overseas. It cannot be used to pay for attorneys or lobbying congress. Nor may it be used to compensate executives in excess of standardized, scale salary plans where, for example, the top-executive may receive no more than 11-to-1 compensation as the lowest paid worker in the organization. Additionally, these Premium Currency dollars may not be used to fund sweat factories in unknown lands, be transferred to off-shore banks or un-numbered Swiss bank accounts. They may not be used to buy drugs, hookers, or pay off gambling debts.
Furthermore these dollars may only be used by the store or franchise to which they're given. They may not be transferred, given, or passed-along by any means to a third party without giving additional "Premium Content" rights to the original consumer. They may be placed one-time in one bank that is registered to that Premium Content distributor, and is also on the "Financial Institutions Approved List" put together by the "Premium Currency Consumer Protection Review Board". The Premium Content may not be further transferred by the Premium Distributor or assigned to any other person or organization.
I think this is a fair system... what about you?
Obviously the correct port number for porn is....
Port 6969
I don't mean this in a mean-spirited manner-- but what kind of hardware are you using???
I've been running Linux on my systems for YEARS -- since the early 90's without much problem with drivers. Sure some here and there, but certainly no more (and probably no less) than I've had with Microsoft platforms. Occassionally I have to wait a little for a driver to get written or stable for Linux, but that's because the mfgrs tend to concentrate on Microsoft and Mac and leave poor Linux to fend for itself-- though generally it does tend to fend for itself pretty well... The only area I've been really disapointed is Multimedia-- getting drivers and codecs and the like so I can use my Linux box in a similar manner that I might use my windows box-- to watch DVD's, listen to music, etc. And even that is doable and the out-of-the-box experience is also improving considerably. My last installation of Mandriva 2007 had a lot of that built-in.
I'm not sure what Microsoft's goal really is. By giving me a choice-- and _respecting_ my choices-- they are _far more likely_ to encourage me to choose Microsoft at least some of the time. By acting the bully they tend to put me off to their stuff no matter how good (or bad) it operates.
Yes, but it took Microsoft 20 years to reach their pinnacle. Linux is still gathering momentum, and there's no rule that says it has to achieve dominance in the same style or in the same length of time it took Microsoft. I firmly believe Microsoft is a dinosaur. They have one winning strategy (IMO) and that is to adopt Linux as their underlying OS. Port "Windows" over to it, however they have to do that, and whatever it becomes-- as a windowing manager. Then they can port their apps over. Screw backwards compatibility. For the three people still using DOS, get vmware or whatever. The apps will probably get a huge performance boost in the process anyway. :) They can even continue to sell their stuff if they want to-- I'd probably even buy it. My biggest beef with Microsoft isn't really their apps, its with their "OS" and with the strong-armed, underhanded way they have muscled everyone else out of the business.
Linux as a Microsoft-Killer? Not hardly. Microsoft is well entrenched and firmly established in most of the major (read: able to pay) markets around the world. It will take awhile to unseat them, if indeed it is able to. But regardless of that-- it _is_ a growing force who's power is on the rise, however slowly that may be. And it is growing in power politically too. Ten years ago Microsoft was able to easily swat aside any talk that Linux could ever be any kind of threat. Today Microsoft is actively working in many settings both overtly and covertly to sabotage its future. Bill Gates was wrong about the Internet. He was wrong about the Web. He and Microsoft are working hard to not underestimate Linux (and Google) as potential threats and are pulling out all the stops to do anything possible to kill it while its young.
Apps? Yes, I agree about that-- Apps would make a huge difference. And I think that the biggest reason you don't see the major established apps ported to Linux is pure politics and pressure from Microsoft. They say stuff like "not enough market base" but that's bullshit. There was a time that Microsoft didn't have enough of a base, or Apple, or OS/2 or half-a-dozen other OS's... and manufacturers ported apps to THOSE platforms. Its not the user base, its the political climate. So again I point to MS's stranglehold on the industry. All you people "poo-pooing" the rise of Linux-- you're saying this stifling of competition and open standards is a good thing????
Microsoft has demonstrated time after time after time after time that they will distort and pervert any standard that emerges and leverage their position as the predominant platform to stifle the competition. This is one of those issues that it depends on who's viewpoint you're using-- from a Microsoft-centric vantage it is a completely reasonable thing to do. They perceive their job as to continue to enhance the business and grow wealth and revenue from the shareholders. From everybody else's point-of-view though, its the 10-bajillion-pound gorilla problem.
The promise of Linux hasn't been wasted by any measure, IMO. It simply hasn't coalesced into its full force yet.
The Linux Strategy???
Since we now know that Microsoft is willing (nay, obsessed) to go "to the mat", as it were, the Linux strategy should be to exploit this tendancy as often as possible. If it happens often enough, either it will become an un-tenable situation for Microsoft, wherein after Microsoft will no longer be able to make any kind of TCO statements regarding Linux vs. Microsoft; and/or else they will go broke in all these no-profit deals (okay, admittedly, it will take them awhile to go broke... but it could happen!
If nothing else, these documents reveal _very_ publically (what many of us already knew) that Microsoft is scared SHITLESS of Linux.
Why should the market leader (a monopolistic, strong-arming, dirty-tricks, no-holds-barred leader at that!) be scared of a FREE operating system and open-source applications-- unless they can see that their dominant position is deeply threatened?
Maybe Balmer will throw some more chairs at somebody. Better be prepared to duck fast.
I wonder what business Microsoft will get into after computers, software and IT?
Who needs Vista?
Same crap in a new box.
More sludge from MS to keep you broke and miserable.
Just say "No Thanks, Vista's not for me."
(For all you Troll-spotters out there-- I just thought I'd say preemptively that this is NOT a troll, this is my OPINION-- there is a difference. So go take your troll-hating self someplace else and leave my post alone)
Yup, that's a sure-fire method. It'll stop spammer's in their tracks. Spammers are such a dull, plodding, unimaginative lot that they'll never think of trying secondary MX records. Good shooting there Hoss!
I think people should just pay Microsoft (and Apple and the others) with Money that has restrictions on it... Here, you can have this money but you can't use it to sue anybody with it, or buy a ferrari. If you do decide to sue, the lawyer will show up late and sleep through the trial, and the ferrari will have a bum paint job and break down conspicuously on the side of the highway every 15 minutes.
"What do you know about your own people?"
Wonder what those people would find out about the management and shareholder types if THEY had to go through background checks and be accountable to the people they manage...???
Anymore closet Ken Lays or Bernie Ebbers out there??
They caused more damage, cost more money, ripped-off more people (workers, shareholders, and average-joes) than ALL of the others, times 10 raised to the 53 power... and then some.
I say conduct all the background checks you want-- but let's start at the top and find out who's really running these shows.
Plus lawyers are more plentiful than bees so it wouldn't present any strain on the ecosystem... smart AND environmentally-friendly. Its win-win all around.
No, what I mean is create a mail RULE for AOL... into the shredder with you!
Yuck Foo AOL and your Little Disks Too!
I can say first and foremost the biggest obstacle to emmigrating to England/UK are your immigration policies. You all are apparently okay with letting practically the whole world into England __EXCEPT__ for Americans. They're good for Yankee tourist dollars and then they're supposed to go home. I'd like very much to live and work in England. Maybe not for the rest of my life perhaps, but definitely for 5-10 years.
From the British Embassy website: http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_
These guidelines are intended for US citizens wishing to work in the United Kingdom.
Employment Requiring Work Permits
Before entering Britain to take up employment, American citizens must have a work permit. The Immigration & Nationality Directorate administers the Work Permit Scheme. Exceptions are made only for the categories of permit-free employment outlined below.
Application for the work permit must be made by the prospective employer in Britain. Individuals cannot apply for a work permit on their own behalf. Applications must be made by the Britain-based employer.
Here are the immigration rules from Immigration and Nationality Directorate: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/imm
Avoid the constraints of the EULA-- use someone else's copy on someone else's machine. They can't hold you to provisoins of the software if you're not the owner. Then you can publish all the benchmarks you want. MS might have a case against the owner, but not with you.
To think that the military can trust foreign nationals not to monkey with code and put hidden back-doors or special triggers into the software is highly suspect.... Especially considering that Americans can't even get voting machines made by _domestic_ companies that are proven trustworthy and without back-doors, hidden triggers, or other security compromises.
On the other hand-- I'd say the final extent of engaging in such folly is ultimately self-limiting since it is highly likely that these Republican cretins that are ruining our country and selling it down the river will one day end up, likely as not, staring down the barrel of one of their own creations. How would that be for penultimate poetic justice?
What they should really do is arrest congress for allowing our country's security to degenerate into such a sad state of affairs. The Republicans are the worst scumbags but the democrats aren't much better. I'm so sick and tired and fed up with this kindergarten congress, imbecilic president and looney-tunes administration that it makes me just want to puke.
I sincerely hope and pray that on election day the american public goes to the polls and that we have a blockbuster record-setting turnout, and that everyone who's eligible to vote sends one crystal-clear message: If they're in, vote 'em out.
Americans are absolutely fed up with political prevarication and pandering to greedy corporations and special interest groups. They should just round 'em all up and send 'em down to Gitmo and swallow the key. And if Bush and Cheney like waterboarding so damned much, let them be the first to volunteer when the people come looking for answers to why our country is so incredibly f*cked-up, what happened to our rights and freedoms, and where did they misplace the fricken constitution...
And dunk 'em good until they fess up that they lied to us about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction so they could invade Iraq and grab its oil fields and invaded afghanistan so they could build a pipeline. And then they can tell us about all these no-bid sweetheart deals to Halliburten and why on earth did they have to spend us into oblivion?
With this administration and congress-- frankly I can't tell anymore who the terrorists really are. I'm just sick of all of it-- vote 'em out, vote 'em out-- Vote 'em OUT!
And goddamn good riddance I say.
(And for the fuckwad that's gonna mod me down as a troll-- Trolls are supposed to have free-speech rights too. Or at least they used to have until this batch got into office.)
Vote the fuckers OUT.
>> Originally the term PC meant Personal Computer, until IBM named there personal computer a PC. Sort of like Microsoft naming their operating system Windows.
Uh, don't you mean sorta like Microsoft naming their Windows an "Operating System"?
Flamebait... ???
Some people just don't have a sense of humor.
Just think of all the great p0rN you can view with one of these things... you know, all those dark recesses and everything. And haven't we all wondered what was happening in the rest of the room, away from the lights??? And... well, uh... you know.... other stuff too
Now all we need is smell-a-vision!
(Uh... or maybe not!)
Can't you people deal with having to learn an alternate (gimp, maya, etc.) or setting up an emulation environment for a while?
Yes but, then we'd have World Peace
(And really, who wants _that_???)
I wish they were still around. I still play some of their games-- Civ Call to Power being one of my favs, and also Railroad Tycoon II. I bought some of their other games too just to try and support a Linux-oriented game-maker but evidently they couldn't live on just my purchases alone...