A company should be responsible for the content of the product that they're marketing.
The content of their product didn't kill anyone. A human being with some degree of free will, intellegence and personal responsibility did. The game didn't decide to kill 3 people and neither did the game company. This teenager did. And to some extent the parents are responsible for deciding to allow their child to sit in front of the TV playing the game for dozens of hours.
If you want to live in a society where people are presumed to have no responsibility for their actions and no free will and all information and communication are tightly controlled, then please go somewhere else. I'd rather take the freedom, even if it means some nutjub shoots a few people every now and then and his scumbag lawyer tries to blame someone else. If that is the cost of freedom, I'm willing to pay it.
If you don't have other patterns established in your psychology to overcome these antisocial patterns, games like this WILL train you to associate criminally antisocial behavior with pleasure.
Other patterns? Such as those established by proper parenting?
But does that mean that the RIAA does not have the right to try and sell a product that does not allow that? If someone wants to sell a "CD" that noone can play, should that be illegal?
Assuming there aren't any false advertisements made, then no it should not be illegal for them to sell copy "protected" CDs. However, it certainly should also not be illegal for purchasers of said CDs to do what they want with their purchased CDs - things which the DMCA currently prohibits.
Oh, and the point of copyright is that you may have a copy that is your property, but that you do not have the right to copy it.
I agree, but the attitude taken by most large media conglomerates is that the copy they sold you isn't yours - it is theirs even after they sold it to you, and they can dictate arbitrary restrictions on how you can use your own stuff.
Should we have the right to backup our DVDs? Or, if we forget to backup our DVDs and they break, copy the DVD of a friend if they happen to have a copy of the same movie?
I think you missed the point despite typting it right out in your comment - "our DVDs". We rightfully own those copies of copyrighted works which were sold to us. They're our property, not the publisher's anymore. We have a right to make certain types of copies, and we have the right to play them - whenever and on whatever type of player we want, wether or not the MPAA placed its stamp of approval on that player.
I'll give you two answers in advance : the IPSec feature set has export control concerns;
Weren't those crypto export regulations eased up years ago?
Even if you did have to use telnet for administration, between vty access lists, snmp access lists, a AAA server, and good logging, you would have the risks pretty well mitigated.
No... no combination of those things offers anywhere near the level of security SSH provides.
It says "All rights reserved". You are not buying any intellectual property at all when you buy a CD. Just a piece of plastic. Copyright does not forbid you to play it, but it does forbid you to copy it, save for fair use.
Actually, it's legal for me to copy it. It's not legal for me to copy it and give that copy to my friend, though.
You're replying to the wrong guy. The above paragraph is the words of the person I replied to, not mine.
Why should such a licence not be enforceable? Why should you not be liable for breaking the contract?
Several reasons:
And not only that, but you could argue that if presenting the license agreement at install time the "contract" is not enforceable since they are not conceeding anything to you in exchange for your "signing" the contract. That element is usually required for contract enforceability. You already own a copy of the oftware, so they aren't conceding that.
It says "All rights reserved". You are not buying any intellectual property at all when you buy a CD. Just a piece of plastic. Copyright does not forbid you to play it, but it does forbid you to copy it, save for fair use.
I am buying a copy of a copyrighted work, not a piece of plastic. The only rights they can "reserve" are the copyrights.
As for implicit or explicit licence, I see no problem with requiring someone to (digitally, and verifiably) sign an EULA before downloading or installing a program. I wouldn't do it probably, but who am I so tell others what kinds of contracts they can enter in?
Downloading maybe, but an EULA presented at install time for a program I've purchased or otherwise legally obtained is meaningless since that copy is already my property. They can't demand I sign a contact to use my own property.
Did loki torrent pick and choose what torrents to host? Could I upload a torrent for a video of my daughter's first birthday, or did they only accept copyrighted commercial movies and the like? Did they go out of their way to help others obtain copyrighted stuff specificly?
Is Lokitorrent at fault if there are people out there who post movies?
Depends. Do they exert control and decide what is distributed on their website? If I were to have posted a bunch of MPAA anti-infringement ads on lokitorrent, would they be taken down by the site maintainers? If so, they're explicitly choosing to post references to and help people download copyrighted things.
Is Google fault if they post a link to Lokitorrent, or to sites with infringing files?
And there's the difference. Google generally doesn't exert editorial control over the link they churn up.
You license it. That is to say, you're allowed to use it as long as you follow the publisher's rules set forth in the little license agreement. The second you step beyond the boundaries of said agreement, you void your license , which by pushing the "I agree" button makes it a contract between you and the publisher. You have now breached your contract, and are subject to legal action.
Except they sold me a copy of their game first, and then after that copy became my property they offered a contract to me - a contact which is of no value to me and may not even be legal since they are offering nothing for your acceptance. They aren't offering usage of the game - they already sold me a copy of it, and I can use my property however I see fit with or without their permission.
Look around? Products are going up in price. Companies just pocket the difference.
What products are we talking about? I thought we were talking about computers, which have been steadily getting cheaper and cheaper for years.
Shareholders also dont care about business models or long term profits are corporate strategy. They only look at things quarterly and accounts not MBA's dictate how to run their companies. All the big shareholders are companies like Schwab and anaylists at these companies are themselves being outsouced to India now. They just look at graphs with arrows.
And what does Shwab do? Make money for those who invest in their funds, your 401k, etc. No matter how you look at it it still all comes down to individual people who buy the products, who work for the corporations, who invest their money in corporate stocks and simply don't give a shit as long as they get more crap for cheaper and get a little more performance on their stock portfolio.
Too many people just use "the corporations" as a convenient excuse to displace the blame on themselves when they shop at walmart and decide to buy the $800 inspiron instead of the similarly speced thinkpad for $500 more (if you call for support on an inspiron, you call India. If you call for support on a thinkpad you call Atlanta).
But everyone does it including things like banking support.
Banks have money.
Its not that we are cheap. Its that the CEO's want bonuses by making their shareholders cream in their pants.
Support does not make product so its cut the most in the eyes of meeting quarterly expectations.
And why does everyone do it? Why does it make the shareholders cream in their pants? Because if they ship off the support dept they can sell products cheaper, and your average consumer will buy the cheapest thing available. If people cared enough about shitty foreign support and lost jobs to stop buying those products, those shareholders wouldn't be too thrilled about the CEO shipping support to India. Those corporate profits don't just appear out of thin air - they come from the pockets of you and me.
Support does not make the product because too many people don't care.
If they can't speak English fluently they have no business taking telephone support calls from English speaking countries, is that really so much to demand?
Is it so much to demand that if you want that kind of service, you pay for it? Everyone likes to bitch about crappy, incomprehsible foreign support and then they go off and buy more $500 Dell crap PCs and $60 routers and everything else from Wal-mart (which they incessantly bitch about too for other reasons).
If you want competent domestic support then either you convince them to work for a third-world wage or you pay their salary. Take your pick.
And how are they going to do all sorts of evil things if they don't have a friendly government nearby they can bend to enforce their bidding? Raise their own army and take over the country? They can have all the money and lawyers they want, but they can't send a team of cops to break down your door to bust you for distributing DeCSS without the government's help.
Now money and influence on media and culture - that's another matter and can be a problem due to the sheepish nature of the average american consumer these days.
If we neuter government, without neutering corporations at the same time, they'll use their cash and organization to re-corrupt government.
If we neuter the government the right way, there will be nothing left to corrupt. Without the availability of corruption, corporations will have less power.
I'll start supporting libertarians when they start feeling like neutering the corporations that are just as bad as our government.
The government is what helps corporations be "bad" through laws like the DMCA, for example, which serves only corporate interests. A libertarian government would not create new and needless laws to suit corporate needs.
Anyway, there is still the strong advise (mainly from enterprise linux distributors) not installing a compiler on a server. Yes, they also provide gcc packages, but as said, they strongly advise not to install those packages
Probably to encourage only using binary packages made for that distro, which are more strictly controlled and tested, less likely to screw things up and easier to roll back from if they do.
Another problem is having a C compiler be required. If your box gets compromised you've given a potential cracker all the tools he needs to do even more damage.
If your box got compromised, the compromise was probably accompished by the attacker by overflowing a buffer and throwing some shell code in the right spot. Think about that - they're already sending code to your machine.
Second, if the machine is compromised, what exactly is stopping the intruder from uploading packages or staticly linked binaries of whatever they want?
I don't think there's any way to force companys to open code or keep authentication servers up....
I think you're hoping for an ideal that's a little "anti-American" (anti-capitalist, really) for the western world. Companies always want to protect their ip for as long as possible, so they can continue to sell games. This inevitably requires some kind of DRM system (the CD-Key system we've had for years and the auth systems we've had for years, Steam really isn't that different).
What is so "anti-American" or "anti-capitalist" about people wanting privacy and control over their own private property? This stuff about all of our property managed and controlled by some central authority which we need the permission of to use our own property... now that sure sounds anti-capitalist.
No, you own a copy of an encrypted datafile, which is worthless without the decryption key, which is available only under contract with Valve through Steam.
But what is advertised in stores is a working copy of Halflife 2, not a worthless encrypted data file. So the "contract" to get the decryption is either void because there is no concession on their part (they already sold you access to the encryption key) or they were falsely advertising.
Re:You (don't) get what you (don't) pay for.
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
But, as we all been reminded, I don't "own" anything. I didn't even get a DVD. I have the license to play HL2 at the whimsey of Valve. If Valve feels like letting me play, I can play. If Valve feels like taking the weekend off when their servers go down, I can't play.
That's what they'd like you to believe - that you don't really own a copy of a copyrighted work. Valve can sell copies of their game for $50 and then go and claim they didn't sell anything at all, but just because something is in a license paper doesn't make it real.
Slashdot Mirror
The content of their product didn't kill anyone. A human being with some degree of free will, intellegence and personal responsibility did. The game didn't decide to kill 3 people and neither did the game company. This teenager did. And to some extent the parents are responsible for deciding to allow their child to sit in front of the TV playing the game for dozens of hours.
If you want to live in a society where people are presumed to have no responsibility for their actions and no free will and all information and communication are tightly controlled, then please go somewhere else. I'd rather take the freedom, even if it means some nutjub shoots a few people every now and then and his scumbag lawyer tries to blame someone else. If that is the cost of freedom, I'm willing to pay it.
Other patterns? Such as those established by proper parenting?
Assuming there aren't any false advertisements made, then no it should not be illegal for them to sell copy "protected" CDs. However, it certainly should also not be illegal for purchasers of said CDs to do what they want with their purchased CDs - things which the DMCA currently prohibits.
I agree, but the attitude taken by most large media conglomerates is that the copy they sold you isn't yours - it is theirs even after they sold it to you, and they can dictate arbitrary restrictions on how you can use your own stuff.
I think you missed the point despite typting it right out in your comment - "our DVDs". We rightfully own those copies of copyrighted works which were sold to us. They're our property, not the publisher's anymore. We have a right to make certain types of copies, and we have the right to play them - whenever and on whatever type of player we want, wether or not the MPAA placed its stamp of approval on that player.
Weren't those crypto export regulations eased up years ago?
No... no combination of those things offers anywhere near the level of security SSH provides.
You're replying to the wrong guy. The above paragraph is the words of the person I replied to, not mine.
And not only that, but you could argue that if presenting the license agreement at install time the "contract" is not enforceable since they are not conceeding anything to you in exchange for your "signing" the contract. That element is usually required for contract enforceability. You already own a copy of the oftware, so they aren't conceding that.
I am buying a copy of a copyrighted work, not a piece of plastic. The only rights they can "reserve" are the copyrights.
Downloading maybe, but an EULA presented at install time for a program I've purchased or otherwise legally obtained is meaningless since that copy is already my property. They can't demand I sign a contact to use my own property.
So they actually did distribute the movies, music, content? I thought they just put up torrents of that stuff?
Did loki torrent pick and choose what torrents to host? Could I upload a torrent for a video of my daughter's first birthday, or did they only accept copyrighted commercial movies and the like? Did they go out of their way to help others obtain copyrighted stuff specificly?
Depends. Do they exert control and decide what is distributed on their website? If I were to have posted a bunch of MPAA anti-infringement ads on lokitorrent, would they be taken down by the site maintainers? If so, they're explicitly choosing to post references to and help people download copyrighted things.
And there's the difference. Google generally doesn't exert editorial control over the link they churn up.
Its kind of like the common carrier thing.
What software did they distribute?
Except they sold me a copy of their game first, and then after that copy became my property they offered a contract to me - a contact which is of no value to me and may not even be legal since they are offering nothing for your acceptance. They aren't offering usage of the game - they already sold me a copy of it, and I can use my property however I see fit with or without their permission.
What products are we talking about? I thought we were talking about computers, which have been steadily getting cheaper and cheaper for years.
And what does Shwab do? Make money for those who invest in their funds, your 401k, etc. No matter how you look at it it still all comes down to individual people who buy the products, who work for the corporations, who invest their money in corporate stocks and simply don't give a shit as long as they get more crap for cheaper and get a little more performance on their stock portfolio.
Too many people just use "the corporations" as a convenient excuse to displace the blame on themselves when they shop at walmart and decide to buy the $800 inspiron instead of the similarly speced thinkpad for $500 more (if you call for support on an inspiron, you call India. If you call for support on a thinkpad you call Atlanta).
And why does everyone do it? Why does it make the shareholders cream in their pants? Because if they ship off the support dept they can sell products cheaper, and your average consumer will buy the cheapest thing available. If people cared enough about shitty foreign support and lost jobs to stop buying those products, those shareholders wouldn't be too thrilled about the CEO shipping support to India. Those corporate profits don't just appear out of thin air - they come from the pockets of you and me.
Support does not make the product because too many people don't care.
Is it so much to demand that if you want that kind of service, you pay for it? Everyone likes to bitch about crappy, incomprehsible foreign support and then they go off and buy more $500 Dell crap PCs and $60 routers and everything else from Wal-mart (which they incessantly bitch about too for other reasons).
If you want competent domestic support then either you convince them to work for a third-world wage or you pay their salary. Take your pick.
I'm not proposing we eliminate government, just that we reduce it to its original function of protecting the rights of the citizens.
And how are they going to do all sorts of evil things if they don't have a friendly government nearby they can bend to enforce their bidding? Raise their own army and take over the country? They can have all the money and lawyers they want, but they can't send a team of cops to break down your door to bust you for distributing DeCSS without the government's help.
Now money and influence on media and culture - that's another matter and can be a problem due to the sheepish nature of the average american consumer these days.
If we neuter the government the right way, there will be nothing left to corrupt. Without the availability of corruption, corporations will have less power.
The government is what helps corporations be "bad" through laws like the DMCA, for example, which serves only corporate interests. A libertarian government would not create new and needless laws to suit corporate needs.
Probably to encourage only using binary packages made for that distro, which are more strictly controlled and tested, less likely to screw things up and easier to roll back from if they do.
If your box got compromised, the compromise was probably accompished by the attacker by overflowing a buffer and throwing some shell code in the right spot. Think about that - they're already sending code to your machine.
Second, if the machine is compromised, what exactly is stopping the intruder from uploading packages or staticly linked binaries of whatever they want?
What is so "anti-American" or "anti-capitalist" about people wanting privacy and control over their own private property? This stuff about all of our property managed and controlled by some central authority which we need the permission of to use our own property... now that sure sounds anti-capitalist.
But what is advertised in stores is a working copy of Halflife 2, not a worthless encrypted data file. So the "contract" to get the decryption is either void because there is no concession on their part (they already sold you access to the encryption key) or they were falsely advertising.
That's what they'd like you to believe - that you don't really own a copy of a copyrighted work. Valve can sell copies of their game for $50 and then go and claim they didn't sell anything at all, but just because something is in a license paper doesn't make it real.