If you knew anything about Cuban, you'd know how stupid your question is. He isn't ON the company payroll, he FUNDS the company payroll. This is the guy that sold off broadcast.com for a sweet billion dollars and has proceeded to stay a step ahead of pretty much everyone on the technology curve. He's also one of the sincerest people you could meet. I hate to use this phrase because it sounds so fucking fanboyish, but the guy just radiates honesty. You know he's not bullshitting you. Down here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area he's on TV all the fucking time, and I have never got the impression he's anything more than a regular guy that happened to make an assload of money and is now using that money to do all the stupid shit he wanted when he DIDN'T have money. Fer fuck's sake, he bought his multi-million dollar house because the marble floors in one of the larger rooms was great for roller hockey.
What I'm saying is, he IS one of the real people and more importantly he's one of the SMART people that actually knows what they're talking about.
Oddly enough, at shows, I hear voices BETTER with earplugs in. The high end frequencies that muck up my ears don't get in, and the plugs I have don't filter out many voice-level frequencies.
IBM, HP, and Sun are all hardware companies that happen to have software divisions. They aren't in the Linux world, they're in the hardware world. The Linux world is Redhat, Suse, Mandake, etc.
I don't think it's fair to place this solely on music. There are many things far louder than your average concert. It's interesting nonetheless. If you've never seen bands like Floor, High on Fire, Khanate, or SunnO))), you really can't understand how sound waves can have that much power. When I saw Floor, my entire body shook. When they'd do sudden stops I felt like I was going to fall over. The only thing I've heard that is louder than them are top fuel (nitromethane powered) dragsters.
Before you ask, I wear earplugs at every show I go to.
The analogy to CSS-encrypted DVD's should be clear: If you have purchased a legitimate CSS-encrypted DVD, you have the right to access the copyrighted content on the DVD in whatever fashion you choose.
Ummm... no.
Analogies don't work when it comes to legal matters. It's easy to say "Well, it's kind of like..." and draw parallels between the situations, but they will be wibbly lines and wibbly lines don't hold up in court.
This ruling does not give you the right to go batshit crazy with your DVD's. All it means is that you can use the software embedded in your DVD player. DVD's are not hardware. There is no embedded software. Files are not software, ergo the precedent of this ruling means nothing. All this ruling does is ensure that you can use a universal remote with your DVD player.
Now this ruling doesn't appear to do anything to affect the access controls portion of the DMCA. From that I'd infer, for example, that DeCSS would be clearly legal, provided it offers the same access controls as every other DVD player (won't allow direct copying of digital content, etc.)
You're inferring a lot from way too little. Additionally, you are confusing the issue. DeCSS would NOT be legal since it is NOT embedded software. Whatever access controls it provides are irrelevant. It is not the software embedded in your DVD player. This ruling pertains specifically to the use of embedded software, not to using outside software to decrypt files.
I'd also presume an X-box mod chip would be okay, provided it didn't include the to ability to play pirated games, i.e. was only usable to run linux on the hardware, not non-legit X-box games.
What the HELL makes you think that? We're talking about a ruling on EMBEDDED SOFTWARE, not copyright circumvention. There are very thick, very clear lines drawn here and I can't understand how you're veering over them so wildly.
You're making very bad assumptions. Embedded software is *FAR* different from 'a movie'. What this ruling means is exactly what it says. You have the right to use embedded software. Movies and music are not software, they are file formats (and copyrighted ones at that). Note that the ruling does not make any statements about use beyond that which is intended. So, for instance, you can't copy the embedded software out to other piece of hardware.
Could you please point me to where the fuck it matters? There isn't a goddamned thing ironic about it. To borrow someone else's sig... That word doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not even mildly fucking humorous.
Breaking encryption schemes is entirely different from utilizing the decryption software in your computer/DVD player. This is about usage. Nothing more.
Which is completely irrelevant to my point. You could program the best damn DVD player to ever grace a computer, and dumbasses would STILL rather use mplayer and libdvdcss because it doesn't cost them a dime. Boycotts of something you don't use are totally meaningless. It's like me threatening to boycott Tampax.
Pitted pistons are fun. Anyway, the original post would have been better off saying something about them regulating what BRAND of gasoline you use, but even that is only marginally applicable.
Or the OSS community politely reminds the big corporations that it cannot be ignored anymore...
Yes you can. A small collection of people that get their undies in a twist over a fucking file format doesn't make a tiny fucking dent in the pocketbooks of the companies that make those products.
and organizes either a boycott
By people that wouldn't buy this shit anyway? You are aware that there are DVD players for Linux that are all nice and legal, yet nobody buys them.
Is it really the case that there are no good artists or musicians who would work on something like that for the joy of creating something?
No. The artists I know that are involved in game development do freelance work in their spare time. I don't know of any coders that work freelance the same way.
Or is it just that the artistic, musical and programming communities don't intersect enough for the people to find each other?
There you go. What little interaction occurs has typically been in the demo scene.
Or is it that the art and music worlds haven't caught onto the possibilities of on-line collaboration and distribution?
It's more difficult to collaborate musically online. When you're talking about moving around a few hundred megs of sound files you end up running into problems.
To me, this looks like the whole DMCA house of cards collapsing.
If it looks that way to you, you need to get a new prescription for your rose colored glasses.
How long will it be before the Courts recognise a CSS-protected DVD as nothing more than a computer program we run to produce the video?
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to understand how the fuck this would change a goddamned thing. Computer programs are still protected under copyright law. Please explain your train of thought on this one, because I just don't get it.
No. You are entitled to use the software, not distribute it at will. You may argue that distribution is use, but try telling that to the GPL defenders around here.
Not the same thing. We're talking about embedded software. Think more along the lines of universal remote controllers (wait, that's what this is about...). Making a copy of a Nintendo game isn't using that copy, it's using another copy (pedantic semantics, but hey that's law), although I can see where this ruling could be used as precedent. What most people fail to understand is that the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car. What they DO care about is you copying that CD and distributing it wholesale to anyone and everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
If you knew anything about Cuban, you'd know how stupid your question is. He isn't ON the company payroll, he FUNDS the company payroll. This is the guy that sold off broadcast.com for a sweet billion dollars and has proceeded to stay a step ahead of pretty much everyone on the technology curve. He's also one of the sincerest people you could meet. I hate to use this phrase because it sounds so fucking fanboyish, but the guy just radiates honesty. You know he's not bullshitting you. Down here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area he's on TV all the fucking time, and I have never got the impression he's anything more than a regular guy that happened to make an assload of money and is now using that money to do all the stupid shit he wanted when he DIDN'T have money. Fer fuck's sake, he bought his multi-million dollar house because the marble floors in one of the larger rooms was great for roller hockey.
What I'm saying is, he IS one of the real people and more importantly he's one of the SMART people that actually knows what they're talking about.
Oddly enough, at shows, I hear voices BETTER with earplugs in. The high end frequencies that muck up my ears don't get in, and the plugs I have don't filter out many voice-level frequencies.
Yeah. It says the band is loud. What's your point?
OSRM is essentially an insurance company. You might as well have said State Farm or Allstate.
IBM, HP, and Sun are all hardware companies that happen to have software divisions. They aren't in the Linux world, they're in the hardware world. The Linux world is Redhat, Suse, Mandake, etc.
I don't think it's fair to place this solely on music. There are many things far louder than your average concert. It's interesting nonetheless. If you've never seen bands like Floor, High on Fire, Khanate, or SunnO))), you really can't understand how sound waves can have that much power. When I saw Floor, my entire body shook. When they'd do sudden stops I felt like I was going to fall over. The only thing I've heard that is louder than them are top fuel (nitromethane powered) dragsters.
Before you ask, I wear earplugs at every show I go to.
You mean they have to act in a thoughtful and scientific manner? What the hell does that have to do with aliens? ;)
Analogies don't work when it comes to legal matters. It's easy to say "Well, it's kind of like..." and draw parallels between the situations, but they will be wibbly lines and wibbly lines don't hold up in court.
This ruling does not give you the right to go batshit crazy with your DVD's. All it means is that you can use the software embedded in your DVD player. DVD's are not hardware. There is no embedded software. Files are not software, ergo the precedent of this ruling means nothing. All this ruling does is ensure that you can use a universal remote with your DVD player.
You're inferring a lot from way too little. Additionally, you are confusing the issue. DeCSS would NOT be legal since it is NOT embedded software. Whatever access controls it provides are irrelevant. It is not the software embedded in your DVD player. This ruling pertains specifically to the use of embedded software, not to using outside software to decrypt files. What the HELL makes you think that? We're talking about a ruling on EMBEDDED SOFTWARE, not copyright circumvention. There are very thick, very clear lines drawn here and I can't understand how you're veering over them so wildly.
You're making very bad assumptions. Embedded software is *FAR* different from 'a movie'. What this ruling means is exactly what it says. You have the right to use embedded software. Movies and music are not software, they are file formats (and copyrighted ones at that). Note that the ruling does not make any statements about use beyond that which is intended. So, for instance, you can't copy the embedded software out to other piece of hardware.
Could you please point me to where the fuck it matters? There isn't a goddamned thing ironic about it. To borrow someone else's sig... That word doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not even mildly fucking humorous.
Breaking encryption schemes is entirely different from utilizing the decryption software in your computer/DVD player. This is about usage. Nothing more.
http://linspire.com/
Which is completely irrelevant to my point. You could program the best damn DVD player to ever grace a computer, and dumbasses would STILL rather use mplayer and libdvdcss because it doesn't cost them a dime. Boycotts of something you don't use are totally meaningless. It's like me threatening to boycott Tampax.
Pitted pistons are fun. Anyway, the original post would have been better off saying something about them regulating what BRAND of gasoline you use, but even that is only marginally applicable.
More importantly, they're all about $3 at your local used book store.
So... you have no problems with what I say, just the way I say it?
Put unleaded in your diesel engine lately? If you can't figure out the analogy, you shouldn't be using it.
Do you have any problems with my posts aside from my grammar? If not, fuck off.
No. You are entitled to use the software, not distribute it at will. You may argue that distribution is use, but try telling that to the GPL defenders around here.
Not the same thing. We're talking about embedded software. Think more along the lines of universal remote controllers (wait, that's what this is about...). Making a copy of a Nintendo game isn't using that copy, it's using another copy (pedantic semantics, but hey that's law), although I can see where this ruling could be used as precedent. What most people fail to understand is that the RIAA, MPAA, Nintendo, your mom, and the King of Spain don't give a fuck about you making a copy of a CD to put in your car. What they DO care about is you copying that CD and distributing it wholesale to anyone and everyone.
Give Scribus a shot. It's young, but improving. It's probably nowhere near what you need, but I have no clue.