Even if companies do not help out the legal way (by releasing their old unsupported products to the public domain), I'm confident classic games (and pretty much classic *everything*) will live on, perhaps through piracy or whatever means necessary. As long as there is a way of obtaining it (say, people copying the ROMs) and there are people interested in it (and there certainly will be as long as the games' existance is known), they will persist. MAME and all the retro-gaming craze are a good example, but even if people have to resort to KaZaA or other questionable means, they can get it.
I guess the way it works in the internet age is: if somebody has it, everybody has it.
Err, you can't redistribute copyrighted works without permission? That's a perfectly reasonable, sane, and one might even argue moral example. You asked for it.
Uh, you got me:P But that's not what I meant at all. I was thinking something along the lines of "they can't tell you where or how many times or in what forms you can listen to your music".
It may be that now that it's possible AND feasible to make sure only purchasers of copyrighted material can view it, that may be the way it becomes.
...which I would find perfectly fair and reasonable, EXCEPT for the fact that these techniques are usually abused, granting the content providers a lot more power over your life than anyone should be allowed - I mean, you BUY stuff from them and that might at some point entitle them to have the right to snoop into your life? Besides, these measures often become very technologically restrictive (try getting your music to play under free OS's or with free software).
...instead of ceaslessly complaining about the end of an era, why not try and help shape the face of these new business models
I wholeheartedly agree. However we, as consumers, shape these models in a free market system basically by voting with our dollars. But the system is being corrupted by the *AA's monopolistic practices and political lobbying, leaving us with no other options than forced compliance or breaking the law (and frankly, as of late I'm thinking of going with the latter).
Imagine in a truly free market where, say, one record company licenses their songs free of all restrictions and another keeps them. Guess who's gonna get the money? This would in turn force the other company to lose the restrictions or lose the business, because that is what consumers want (and note, this would involve no stealing whatsoever).
DRM works when the rights protected strike a balance between the producer's and the consumer's rights. Right now it seems clear that it's totally biased to one side. Can anyone find it reasonable, or even conceivable, that a company can mandate how and where you use something you purchase from them?
I've got a 486SX somewhere that I call Nessie (I figured it was ancient and half the people I talk to don't believe it could actually exist).
Heh... I once had a 486SX2 (it ran at 66Mhz, IIRC). Frankly, I myself had trouble believing it existed until I saw it with my own eyes and actually used it. Would that be history?
Everyone should probably read where the discussion came from (http://lkml.org/archive/2003/7/17/124/index.html) before commenting on it. Here's a copy.
---
With apologies to the list for the off topic post (I'm really trying to not annoy you guys but some stuff we can't let slide due to legalities).
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:05:05PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote: > Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on > the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version > of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
Yes, for the research project and/or anything else.
> Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of > Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains > substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the > Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the > development started?
Yes.
> Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which > contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from > using the Free Bitkeeper software?
Yes.
Each question above can be restated as "Would it be OK if we used BK in violation of its license?". The answer is no and if you did that we would be forced to come after you, if we don't and some large company did the same thing we would have a much tougher time enforcing the license. Trademarks and licenses tend to lose their value if you don't enforce them.
Your questions indicate one of two things: you either have a burning desire to work on BK itself or a burning desire to copy BK. If it's the former, that's easy, send us a resume and if you are a good engineer we'll hire you, we need good engineers with a solid understanding of file systems, distributed systems, graphs and sets, and/or human interfaces.
If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
Instead of trying to copy our work in violation of our license, you'd be far better served by doing some new work. If you like SCM then either work here, work on some other SCM unrelated to BK, or expect a costly discussion with a lawyer. I realize this is an unpopular position but that's tough, it's our code and our license and you obey the rules or suffer the consequences. The license is a contract and it's an enforceable contract, we have gone up against a company who spends more on lawyers in a week than our annual gross revenues and successfully enforced it. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have
Well, why use exclusively Windows/Linux/*insert-your-OS* ? Why not use a more open solution (say, a system with a secure web interface) that does not depend on the OS? It hardly seems fair that people should need to depend on any product whatsoever to vote.
I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate
So should we prefer security by obscurity then? Wouldn't it be better to use an open, provably secure system that everyone can scrutinize so people can be sure stuff is being done the right way instead of just hoping nobody's discovered a hole? Of course I realize this would require some serious testing to make sure all the bugs were ironed out, but after a while I think it would make people much more confident to know how it was working behind the scenes. Look at it this way: would you rather go vote by pressing buttons on a black box the government has set up which they claim works the right way, or do you prefer knowing how the system actually works (how ballots are collected, carried, counted, etc) and feel safer?
For those hacking the X-Box, here's the challenge: Prove you aren't doing this just to one-up Microsoft and you truly believe that you should be able to do whatever you want with the hardware and the software. How to prove it?
Challenge 1 - Get an Apple G3 or G4 or G5 to boot Windows XP
Challenge 2 - Get OS X booting on a PC
Challenge 3 - ???
Challenge 4 - Profit!
No, but seriously, that doesn't make much sense... running Linux on the Xbox is something technically perfectly feasible (and desirable for the reasons stated in this thread). However, running Windows on an Apple box or OS X on a PC is pretty much impossible (I'm talking about doing it natively, you might get away with software emulation) because they're just made for different hardware. Even if you had the source to the OS's it'd be hard enough to port them, and it'd be an effort of astronomic proportions compared to what it takes to run Linux on an Xbox (which is after all just some form of a PC).
*gasps* Wow. I must say, first of all, I'm amazed, I was expecting to get my ass flamed back real bad:) Congratulations on a well-thought response.
Anyway, amazingly enough, I agree with you on pretty much every point. I think on the (really) long run, money might not be necessary. However, in the immediate future, I don't think there is any way to get around it. Money is needed today as a measure of how much our work is worth to society (and whether that's fair or not is an entirely different question and is not money's fault but something inherent in ourselves).
I too long for the day machines will be doing the hardest and most dangerous work (spare me the Matrix comparisons), and we'll be taking care only of supervising them and doing the most interesting and creative work (primarily scientific R&D and the arts). I definitely think that's the society we should aspire to and it's what we should set as the highest of our goals. But in the meantime, when we have children doing nearly slave work, there's a lot more to worry about than getting rid of money (something impractical which will not solve any problems today). It is not the root of all evil, although maybe we are - and we're the solution too.
Just look at you.
How much money do you spend to count your money?
And you still profess capitalism to be the best system every developed? How long ago was it developed? Don't think we've learned anything since then?
So I guess you suggest everyone just go grab as much money as they think they deserve out of the big rich all-knowing all-seeing all-owning State. Or should we abolish money altogether? I'm sure you'd like to have the same remuneration for being responsible for the operation of thousands of productive systems than for wiping floors. That's a hell of an incentive.
I've always had the same problem (down here in Chile). However, I've come to understand that the situation is somewhat more complex than one would imagine; it's not just a matter of putting a stamp on the box and sending it overseas. There's taxes, credit card companies, governments, taxes, customs, taxes, etc.
Fortunately, a few local companies (it's been mostly airlines here) have realized this is good business and so have created the service for anyone to use. You pay with your card, set the shipping address to some US P.O. box they give you (usually in Miami) and once it gets there (transparently for the vendor) they take care of getting it to your house, charging you for all the taxes involved, checking all relevant regulations, etc (obviously you pay a little more for the service but There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Shipping). This is extremely understandable and is, I believe, the way to go (except for the LARGEST companies - I'm sure, say, Amazon could afford to ship here).
(What DOES remain a problem is when they definitely do NOT take any sort of international credit cards. I mean, you HAVE to pay some way! Hello, this is not a fraudulent country!)
Did I miss something? How did this end up being moderated "Funny"? Either I'm taking it too seriously or the state of things is so sad that appeals for greater participation in our own government are considered "Funny".
Slashdot Mirror
By Steve Connor Science Editor
15 August 2030
Indeed he is... 27 years into the future.
I guess the way it works in the internet age is: if somebody has it, everybody has it.
Uh, you got me :P But that's not what I meant at all. I was thinking something along the lines of "they can't tell you where or how many times or in what forms you can listen to your music".
...which I would find perfectly fair and reasonable, EXCEPT for the fact that these techniques are usually abused, granting the content providers a lot more power over your life than anyone should be allowed - I mean, you BUY stuff from them and that might at some point entitle them to have the right to snoop into your life? Besides, these measures often become very technologically restrictive (try getting your music to play under free OS's or with free software).
I wholeheartedly agree. However we, as consumers, shape these models in a free market system basically by voting with our dollars. But the system is being corrupted by the *AA's monopolistic practices and political lobbying, leaving us with no other options than forced compliance or breaking the law (and frankly, as of late I'm thinking of going with the latter).
Imagine in a truly free market where, say, one record company licenses their songs free of all restrictions and another keeps them. Guess who's gonna get the money? This would in turn force the other company to lose the restrictions or lose the business, because that is what consumers want (and note, this would involve no stealing whatsoever).
DRM works when the rights protected strike a balance between the producer's and the consumer's rights. Right now it seems clear that it's totally biased to one side. Can anyone find it reasonable, or even conceivable, that a company can mandate how and where you use something you purchase from them?
Heh... I once had a 486SX2 (it ran at 66Mhz, IIRC). Frankly, I myself had trouble believing it existed until I saw it with my own eyes and actually used it. Would that be history?
Everyone should probably read where the discussion came from (http://lkml.org/archive/2003/7/17/124/index.html) before commenting on it. Here's a copy.
---
With apologies to the list for the off topic post (I'm really trying to
not annoy you guys but some stuff we can't let slide due to legalities).
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:05:05PM +0100, Rory Browne wrote:
> Would the conduction of research(and publication of results of same) on
> the bitkeeper formats/protocols, preclude users from using the Free version
> of Bitkeeper, for the research project?
Yes, for the research project and/or anything else.
> Would the carrying out of such research using the free version of
> Bitkeeper, prevent them from developing a product which contains
> substantially similar capabilities of the BitKeeper Software in the
> Future, assuming that all copies of Bitkeeper were destroyed before the
> development started?
Yes.
> Would previous activity in the area of developing a product which
> contains substantially similary features to Bitkeeper preclude users from
> using the Free Bitkeeper software?
Yes.
Each question above can be restated as "Would it be OK if we used BK
in violation of its license?". The answer is no and if you did that we
would be forced to come after you, if we don't and some large company did
the same thing we would have a much tougher time enforcing the license.
Trademarks and licenses tend to lose their value if you don't enforce
them.
Your questions indicate one of two things: you either have a burning
desire to work on BK itself or a burning desire to copy BK. If it's
the former, that's easy, send us a resume and if you are a good engineer
we'll hire you, we need good engineers with a solid understanding of file
systems, distributed systems, graphs and sets, and/or human interfaces.
If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
Instead of trying to copy our work in violation of our license, you'd be
far better served by doing some new work. If you like SCM then either
work here, work on some other SCM unrelated to BK, or expect a costly
discussion with a lawyer. I realize this is an unpopular position but
that's tough, it's our code and our license and you obey the rules
or suffer the consequences. The license is a contract and it's an
enforceable contract, we have gone up against a company who spends more
on lawyers in a week than our annual gross revenues and successfully
enforced it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Well, why use exclusively Windows/Linux/*insert-your-OS* ? Why not use a more open solution (say, a system with a secure web interface) that does not depend on the OS? It hardly seems fair that people should need to depend on any product whatsoever to vote.
So should we prefer security by obscurity then? Wouldn't it be better to use an open, provably secure system that everyone can scrutinize so people can be sure stuff is being done the right way instead of just hoping nobody's discovered a hole? Of course I realize this would require some serious testing to make sure all the bugs were ironed out, but after a while I think it would make people much more confident to know how it was working behind the scenes. Look at it this way: would you rather go vote by pressing buttons on a black box the government has set up which they claim works the right way, or do you prefer knowing how the system actually works (how ballots are collected, carried, counted, etc) and feel safer?
Challenge 3 - ???
Challenge 4 - Profit!
No, but seriously, that doesn't make much sense... running Linux on the Xbox is something technically perfectly feasible (and desirable for the reasons stated in this thread). However, running Windows on an Apple box or OS X on a PC is pretty much impossible (I'm talking about doing it natively, you might get away with software emulation) because they're just made for different hardware. Even if you had the source to the OS's it'd be hard enough to port them, and it'd be an effort of astronomic proportions compared to what it takes to run Linux on an Xbox (which is after all just some form of a PC).
Anyway, amazingly enough, I agree with you on pretty much every point. I think on the (really) long run, money might not be necessary. However, in the immediate future, I don't think there is any way to get around it. Money is needed today as a measure of how much our work is worth to society (and whether that's fair or not is an entirely different question and is not money's fault but something inherent in ourselves).
I too long for the day machines will be doing the hardest and most dangerous work (spare me the Matrix comparisons), and we'll be taking care only of supervising them and doing the most interesting and creative work (primarily scientific R&D and the arts). I definitely think that's the society we should aspire to and it's what we should set as the highest of our goals. But in the meantime, when we have children doing nearly slave work, there's a lot more to worry about than getting rid of money (something impractical which will not solve any problems today). It is not the root of all evil, although maybe we are - and we're the solution too.
So I guess you suggest everyone just go grab as much money as they think they deserve out of the big rich all-knowing all-seeing all-owning State. Or should we abolish money altogether? I'm sure you'd like to have the same remuneration for being responsible for the operation of thousands of productive systems than for wiping floors. That's a hell of an incentive.
Fortunately, a few local companies (it's been mostly airlines here) have realized this is good business and so have created the service for anyone to use. You pay with your card, set the shipping address to some US P.O. box they give you (usually in Miami) and once it gets there (transparently for the vendor) they take care of getting it to your house, charging you for all the taxes involved, checking all relevant regulations, etc (obviously you pay a little more for the service but There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Shipping). This is extremely understandable and is, I believe, the way to go (except for the LARGEST companies - I'm sure, say, Amazon could afford to ship here).
(What DOES remain a problem is when they definitely do NOT take any sort of international credit cards. I mean, you HAVE to pay some way! Hello, this is not a fraudulent country!)
Did I miss something? How did this end up being moderated "Funny"? Either I'm taking it too seriously or the state of things is so sad that appeals for greater participation in our own government are considered "Funny".
Were you on a TMS machine, you would actually realize there *is* no spoon.