I haven't RTFA, so correct me if my assumptions are wrong, but wouldn't the restrictions be on making perfect digital copies that you could distribute freely over the internet?
While DRM is like a four letter word on here, there are good kinds of DRM and bad kinds of DRM. Good DRM will be simple to use and won't get the in way of basic use: watching on your computer, burning to DVD, watching on iPod/PSP, etc. At the same time, good DRM would prevent people from making unlimited copies that could be spread on the internet. Basically, good DRM assumes that 99% of its users are good people and gets out of their way, while making life difficult for the 1% who want to distribute the content and/or make profit from it.
On the other side of the coin, bad DRM assumes everyone is a potential thief and makes using the content difficult for everyone (MS comes to mind here). Limiting playback to expensive equipment and/or software that does not let you make any copies, even for backup purposes, giving full control to the media produces instead of the users, etc.
Bad DRM should be avoided like the plague, but don't avoid all DRM. Labeling good DRM just as evil as the bad DRM is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This is better than getting the lawyers involved. What a great case of the community policing itself and making sure it is following its own rules. It may take a while, but I think this issue will be resolved and the project(s) will move forward.
Hey, sometimes you have to buy the parts when the money is there. Wait much longer and it gets spent on other items (dinners out, games, girlfriend, etc). I'm sure I'm not the only one caught in this situation.
And in the mean time he should do what... not have internet access? I'm in a comparable situation where I plan on buying Vista when it hits the shelves for my new computer (I know, I know, I just lost my True Geek credit because I'm not going with a Linux only setup), but what do I run on it until then? I can easily run Linux, but I would like to play some games on my kick ass new video card. I could pirate XP, which may or may not work. Or I could break down and buy XP now and either buy Vista or the upgrade in a few weeks. Basically, it's a shitty time to need a new Windows based OS because Vista is only weeks away. You can't really justify spending the money on XP if you plan on using Vista, but you can't use Vista unless you use a release canadate, which brings us back to this guy's problem. Should he simply turn his computer off for a few weeks to wait for the full Vista (which may still have the issue) or try to find a fix right now?
But they broke plenty of laws to keep their monopoly:) And while their actions during their rise to the top may not have been illegal, they could easily be called 'strong-armed'.
I think you are a bit closer to the truth than I was. Apple has a much more stable supply and future feature increase with Intel than it ever did with the PPC architecture.
First of all, switch to a Power6 based architecture is not something you simple do. It takes a LOT of effort in writing the OS to function on the new architecture, not to mention all the work by developers to make their programs function on it as well. Second, Apple didn't choose Intel because they were the "best at the moment" uP supplier. They chose Intel because Apples felt they had a better future than the PowerPC line. So, even if someone, like Power6, does poke their head above Intel/x86 in performance, Apple is content that Intel will surpass them and continue producing good CPU's. Apple did not switch to x86 based processors lightly.
Question for you (and all other PS3 owners who are/want to install YDL on their PS3): why? This isn't a troll, just something I don't understand. So you spend $600+ (that's the cost of a PS3 near me) and instead of using it play games (it's intended function) you install YDL which removes your ability to play PS3 games (if I understand everything correctly). So, why go to all that effort? Why not simply use it for playing games or go out and buy another computer if you wish to run Linux?
That would be a big loss of revenue for most game retailers then. There are no laws in place to prohibit selling of M rates games to minors (at least, not in my state), so businesses have to make a choice on the issue.
The internet is a bit more complicated than that. To extend your painter analogy, imagine you have to be within sight of some sponsored advertisements at the public space the painting is displayed. Much like NASA car, you just cannot see the main attraction without also catching glimpses of the ads. Now, imagine someone walked up, took a super-high resolution photo of the painting. He could then display the painting around the corner, with his own advertisements, thus profiting off the painters copyrighted work. This would be a better analogy to the case. The painter is only asking the government to protect his copyright, which he has the right to do. If he choose to display the picture without any ads and did it out of the kindness of his heart, he could still prevent the second person from copying his painting in the public space and making money from it. That is what a copyright is.
I think the key concept you are missing is the linking directly to copyrighted material that the owner does not want others to link to. A copyright holder can decide who and how their material is distributed (as it should be). What is this rules does is reverse the rule of thumb of "if you put it on the internet, you are publishing it for anyone to see, unless you protect access to it". Now, instead of having to protect the content through technical measures, they can use lawyers instead. All-n-all, I don't think this will change much. Unless a copyright holder wants to take everyone who links to their content to court, they are still bitter off using technical means of protected their content from being used as was in this case.
You wouldn't have to patent before testing, just keep your information incredible secrete. Once the drug had been tested and found to work, the patent could be filed and the produced released. Come on, this isn't rocket science:)
Ever spilled some Starbucks or other major coffee shop brand coffee on yourself (I have)? Did it result in third degree burns (it didn't on me)? You can easily serve good coffee that will not result in serious injury to a person if spilled.
You mean so hot that your burn your mouth and require medical attention? Yup, sure seems a good trade off for their POS coffee to taste just a little bit better. You know, this new coffee shop that is popping up everyone, I think they are called Star-something, serves great tasting coffee with the added bonus that is won't burn you if you spill it on yourself (I've done that, it's just really warm and then turns very cold). The "flavor" argument, IMHO, is a BS cop-out meant to shift blame from McD's to it's customers, which is also a pretty crummy thing to do.
Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit. If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns. I don't care how stupid she was, if you get coffee spilled on you you should only have to worry about having wet clothes, not burns that require hospitalization. So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.
Didn't I read recently that Nintendo was issuing a massive recall/replacement program to replace the straps on all the Wiimotes? How can you sue a company who is completely willing to fix the problem is a very timely manor (1 month)? Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?
Exactly. A fire"wall" is a "wall" for data going in and out. Most firewalls have rules that let you punch an outgoing hole to send data and get a response. Most are also configured to not open a hole when someone on the other side of the wall (the untrusted side) requests to get in (unless they are part of the previously mentioned communication). So yes, you are making a hole in the firewall. If it wasn't a hole, the it really isn't a fire"wall" and would be more of a fire"chain-link-fence".
So basically, far from having "a hole punched through your firewall", you've basically invited an untrustworthy element through your security, and it's opening a window so it can pass information back out to it's friends.
Window... hole... basically a port is opened (from the inside) that allows data to into the 'secured' side of the network. You may not like the term 'hole', which conjures images of hackers and exploits, but you are, in effect, opening a 'hole' in your firewall that someone on the outside can now sent data through to your computer. That's a hole. It's also a window. It's also a door, a porthole, and channel, a port, etc.
No, it is "punching" a hole in the firewall. While NAT transversal is similar to this technique, is works even if you are not using NAT (say, at an office). While it's nothing "ground braking" or really that new, it is (at least to me) interesting and probably is to anyone who isn't a network guru.
If there are buffer overflows, isn't the solution to fix the buffer overflows?
Well sure it is! But MS doesn't control all the source code of the software the OS runs (but they're working on that;)). Even if the OS is free of buffer overruns (which is should be after 5+ years of development), if a poorly implemented yet popular program (such as an IM client) still has buffer overruns, there is only so much that the OS can do/not do.
Simple: the phone I want paired with the service I need. Right now, many phone models are only sold from one, maybe two different service provides and are locked to only those providers. So there may be a phone that I love (good quality, the features I will actually use, good looks, etc) but pairs with a service that is crap where I live and work (such as Cingular). I would happily drop $200-$400 on the cell phone I actually want if I knew I could use it with all the providers in my area. And who knows about the future. I may get relocated and move to the other side of the country in 6 months. What if the provider who was great in my first place sucks in my new home area? Currently, I would either pay the large termination fee and switch to the better network in my area (and thus be forced to get a new phone). But if my phone was unlocked and there weren't these damn termination fees, I would be able to switch over (maybe pay an activation fee), and still be able to enjoy the phone I actually like.
You know the best solution (for the consumer, not the companies)? Make all cellular phones work with all network providers! *Gasp!* A solution that actually makes switching networks simple?? We must out law this! Why, if people can drop $200-$300 on a phone and then be able to select the service provider that provides the best reception in their area, then consumers would actually have choices!
Trust me, as a Cingular customer (not for much lover thank god), your friends/family are getting what they pay for. They are cheap and there is a good reason why. Bad reception, MANY dropped calls, bad customer service, etc. I've had cases where my phone has shown all bars, yet instead of ringing when my gf called, my phone didn't make a sound until I got the "new voicemail" message. My phone didn't even ring, even though on my gf's end it rang many times before going to voicemail. I'm switching to Verizon next month when my contract with Cingular is up. My gf is with them and gets crystal clear quality out in the sticks where the cows out number the people, while Cingular has crap reception three blocks from one of their big stores.
Slashdot Mirror
While DRM is like a four letter word on here, there are good kinds of DRM and bad kinds of DRM. Good DRM will be simple to use and won't get the in way of basic use: watching on your computer, burning to DVD, watching on iPod/PSP, etc. At the same time, good DRM would prevent people from making unlimited copies that could be spread on the internet. Basically, good DRM assumes that 99% of its users are good people and gets out of their way, while making life difficult for the 1% who want to distribute the content and/or make profit from it.
On the other side of the coin, bad DRM assumes everyone is a potential thief and makes using the content difficult for everyone (MS comes to mind here). Limiting playback to expensive equipment and/or software that does not let you make any copies, even for backup purposes, giving full control to the media produces instead of the users, etc.
Bad DRM should be avoided like the plague, but don't avoid all DRM. Labeling good DRM just as evil as the bad DRM is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
This is better than getting the lawyers involved. What a great case of the community policing itself and making sure it is following its own rules. It may take a while, but I think this issue will be resolved and the project(s) will move forward.
Hey, sometimes you have to buy the parts when the money is there. Wait much longer and it gets spent on other items (dinners out, games, girlfriend, etc). I'm sure I'm not the only one caught in this situation.
And in the mean time he should do what... not have internet access? I'm in a comparable situation where I plan on buying Vista when it hits the shelves for my new computer (I know, I know, I just lost my True Geek credit because I'm not going with a Linux only setup), but what do I run on it until then? I can easily run Linux, but I would like to play some games on my kick ass new video card. I could pirate XP, which may or may not work. Or I could break down and buy XP now and either buy Vista or the upgrade in a few weeks. Basically, it's a shitty time to need a new Windows based OS because Vista is only weeks away. You can't really justify spending the money on XP if you plan on using Vista, but you can't use Vista unless you use a release canadate, which brings us back to this guy's problem. Should he simply turn his computer off for a few weeks to wait for the full Vista (which may still have the issue) or try to find a fix right now?
But they broke plenty of laws to keep their monopoly :) And while their actions during their rise to the top may not have been illegal, they could easily be called 'strong-armed'.
I think you are a bit closer to the truth than I was. Apple has a much more stable supply and future feature increase with Intel than it ever did with the PPC architecture.
First of all, switch to a Power6 based architecture is not something you simple do. It takes a LOT of effort in writing the OS to function on the new architecture, not to mention all the work by developers to make their programs function on it as well. Second, Apple didn't choose Intel because they were the "best at the moment" uP supplier. They chose Intel because Apples felt they had a better future than the PowerPC line. So, even if someone, like Power6, does poke their head above Intel/x86 in performance, Apple is content that Intel will surpass them and continue producing good CPU's. Apple did not switch to x86 based processors lightly.
Question for you (and all other PS3 owners who are/want to install YDL on their PS3): why? This isn't a troll, just something I don't understand. So you spend $600+ (that's the cost of a PS3 near me) and instead of using it play games (it's intended function) you install YDL which removes your ability to play PS3 games (if I understand everything correctly). So, why go to all that effort? Why not simply use it for playing games or go out and buy another computer if you wish to run Linux?
I know your post was moded "Funny", but the more accurate category would have to be "Funny - but frighteningly close to reality".
That would be a big loss of revenue for most game retailers then. There are no laws in place to prohibit selling of M rates games to minors (at least, not in my state), so businesses have to make a choice on the issue.
The internet is a bit more complicated than that. To extend your painter analogy, imagine you have to be within sight of some sponsored advertisements at the public space the painting is displayed. Much like NASA car, you just cannot see the main attraction without also catching glimpses of the ads. Now, imagine someone walked up, took a super-high resolution photo of the painting. He could then display the painting around the corner, with his own advertisements, thus profiting off the painters copyrighted work. This would be a better analogy to the case. The painter is only asking the government to protect his copyright, which he has the right to do. If he choose to display the picture without any ads and did it out of the kindness of his heart, he could still prevent the second person from copying his painting in the public space and making money from it. That is what a copyright is.
I think the key concept you are missing is the linking directly to copyrighted material that the owner does not want others to link to. A copyright holder can decide who and how their material is distributed (as it should be). What is this rules does is reverse the rule of thumb of "if you put it on the internet, you are publishing it for anyone to see, unless you protect access to it". Now, instead of having to protect the content through technical measures, they can use lawyers instead. All-n-all, I don't think this will change much. Unless a copyright holder wants to take everyone who links to their content to court, they are still bitter off using technical means of protected their content from being used as was in this case.
You wouldn't have to patent before testing, just keep your information incredible secrete. Once the drug had been tested and found to work, the patent could be filed and the produced released. Come on, this isn't rocket science :)
Ever spilled some Starbucks or other major coffee shop brand coffee on yourself (I have)? Did it result in third degree burns (it didn't on me)? You can easily serve good coffee that will not result in serious injury to a person if spilled.
You mean so hot that your burn your mouth and require medical attention? Yup, sure seems a good trade off for their POS coffee to taste just a little bit better. You know, this new coffee shop that is popping up everyone, I think they are called Star-something, serves great tasting coffee with the added bonus that is won't burn you if you spill it on yourself (I've done that, it's just really warm and then turns very cold). The "flavor" argument, IMHO, is a BS cop-out meant to shift blame from McD's to it's customers, which is also a pretty crummy thing to do.
Personally, I hate references to the old woman who spilled coffee on herself as a stupid lawsuit. If you actually look in deeper, you will find that the coffee was so hot, it scalded and caused horrible burns. I don't care how stupid she was, if you get coffee spilled on you you should only have to worry about having wet clothes, not burns that require hospitalization. So please, stop using that reference. She was injured because McDonalds kept their coffee at an unsafe temperature.
Didn't I read recently that Nintendo was issuing a massive recall/replacement program to replace the straps on all the Wiimotes? How can you sue a company who is completely willing to fix the problem is a very timely manor (1 month)? Or is this lawyer just a greedy bastard?
Exactly. A fire"wall" is a "wall" for data going in and out. Most firewalls have rules that let you punch an outgoing hole to send data and get a response. Most are also configured to not open a hole when someone on the other side of the wall (the untrusted side) requests to get in (unless they are part of the previously mentioned communication). So yes, you are making a hole in the firewall. If it wasn't a hole, the it really isn't a fire"wall" and would be more of a fire"chain-link-fence".
Window... hole... basically a port is opened (from the inside) that allows data to into the 'secured' side of the network. You may not like the term 'hole', which conjures images of hackers and exploits, but you are, in effect, opening a 'hole' in your firewall that someone on the outside can now sent data through to your computer. That's a hole. It's also a window. It's also a door, a porthole, and channel, a port, etc.
No, it is "punching" a hole in the firewall. While NAT transversal is similar to this technique, is works even if you are not using NAT (say, at an office). While it's nothing "ground braking" or really that new, it is (at least to me) interesting and probably is to anyone who isn't a network guru.
Well sure it is! But MS doesn't control all the source code of the software the OS runs (but they're working on that ;)). Even if the OS is free of buffer overruns (which is should be after 5+ years of development), if a poorly implemented yet popular program (such as an IM client) still has buffer overruns, there is only so much that the OS can do/not do.
With a 600% markup compared to the bars and/or liquor stores around the airport :)
Simple: the phone I want paired with the service I need. Right now, many phone models are only sold from one, maybe two different service provides and are locked to only those providers. So there may be a phone that I love (good quality, the features I will actually use, good looks, etc) but pairs with a service that is crap where I live and work (such as Cingular). I would happily drop $200-$400 on the cell phone I actually want if I knew I could use it with all the providers in my area. And who knows about the future. I may get relocated and move to the other side of the country in 6 months. What if the provider who was great in my first place sucks in my new home area? Currently, I would either pay the large termination fee and switch to the better network in my area (and thus be forced to get a new phone). But if my phone was unlocked and there weren't these damn termination fees, I would be able to switch over (maybe pay an activation fee), and still be able to enjoy the phone I actually like.
You know the best solution (for the consumer, not the companies)? Make all cellular phones work with all network providers! *Gasp!* A solution that actually makes switching networks simple?? We must out law this! Why, if people can drop $200-$300 on a phone and then be able to select the service provider that provides the best reception in their area, then consumers would actually have choices!
Trust me, as a Cingular customer (not for much lover thank god), your friends/family are getting what they pay for. They are cheap and there is a good reason why. Bad reception, MANY dropped calls, bad customer service, etc. I've had cases where my phone has shown all bars, yet instead of ringing when my gf called, my phone didn't make a sound until I got the "new voicemail" message. My phone didn't even ring, even though on my gf's end it rang many times before going to voicemail. I'm switching to Verizon next month when my contract with Cingular is up. My gf is with them and gets crystal clear quality out in the sticks where the cows out number the people, while Cingular has crap reception three blocks from one of their big stores.