There seem to be 3 factors that will eventually determine who wins out:
1. Quality - If it is compressed it still needs to be good quality 2. Widespread adoption - If you can't encode and decode it wherever you want to use it, then it won't work for you. 3. Portability/Restrictions - Finding the right balance between copy protections wanted by the MPAA/RIAA and the portability wanted by the consumers.
This article over at cnet looks like Microsoft may actually be listening to the critics of trusted computing and rather moving towards what it calls Shield Technology - basically incorporating better firewall technology into the operating system. I for one would welcome this over trusted computing.
Maybe Microsoft actually registered this patent not for themselves to actually use, but more as a defence against other patent lawsuits. Now if IBM try sure them for some infringement, they counter-sue with their own patent. The patent system is a mess, and all it does is make lawyers rich.
But there is the point - just because 50 million americans want to speed on the highways, doesn't mean they can (legally). If the majority believe that they should be able to say who can phone them, that they can download copyrighted material freely, speed on the roads, then what's to stop them from changing the laws to allow them to do that - that is democracy. Of course when the majority starts changing all the laws to suit them, it soon leads to anarchy and the eventual destruction of democracy, because very soon they realise they can have a law that gives them everything for free. Still, when a stupid law is passed, the majority should rise up to change that law. But otherwise, if you choose to live in a country, you choose to abide by the laws of that country.
Murphys Law - I have been meaning to take a look at it for a while, and am on capped bandwidth, so finally decided to bite the bullet and download all 700MB of it yesterday! Guess I am going to have to try order the cd now, or wait till next month. Surely they knew they were close to releasing the next version, and could of put a notice up yesterday or a couple of days ago saying that the new version was just days/hours away.
In this article on on CNET O'Shaughnessy said "the service has been embraced by end users. "We've seen nothing but very positive results from the Internet community," he said. "Usage is extraordinary. Both individual users and enterprises are giving very positive feedback."
So they are attributing a slashdotting, and a lot of media interest to people being positive about the service. I haven't seen one article, comment or anything that was even remotely positive. What are these guys on?
He also claims they are fully compliant with every RFC. I don't see how this is possible, unless they have found some loophole.
Either way, a game isn't going to make some kid go out and pick up a gun and start killing people. There were serious problems there before the kid started playing the game. This is the parents trying to deflect the blame away from their poor parenting skills.
You also have to ask where these kids got the guns from. What parent leaves guns lying around that their kids can get access to.
Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to pass the buck.
"This case is about a fellow who made available 600 copyrighted works," Roberts said. "Is there any legitimate purpose for making available for copying 600 copyrighted works?"
Surely that question is for another court to decide, after the name has been released by the ISP through the subpeana process and the trial is in front of a jury - whatever happenned to innocent until proven guilty?
The question before this court is whether it is constitutional for the RIAA to issue the subpeana without being required to file a suit first, and whether it is constitutional for the RIAA to have that power, rather than a law enforcement agency.
I think the whole issue is that the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency and shouldn't have the powers of one. They should have to follow the same process as everyone else.
While P2P may be phased out by newer technologies, its main use - sharing files between users will not stop (a lot of them borderline legal to blatantly illegal). Look at the history of the Internet. First there were Newsgroups, FTP Servers (remember all those no leech policies), Bulletin Boards, Hotline, Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Since the beginning of the Internet people have wanted an easy and anonymous way of trading files. As each technology was foiled by the industry or upgraded by newer technology, one thing had remained constant - The sharing of files online. That is not a fad - only the technologies supporting it.
Not so. These networks exist because there was something that Napster was inherently lacking - privacy. And these networks will continue to provide that, because the RIAA/MPAA won't be able to sue to receive personal information if no law is being infringed. So anyone who wants to trade files anonymously will still use these networks.
Wrong - Both Napster and all other P2P applications provide exactly the same level of privacy. Your IP is available through both services and nothing more.
These other P2P networks were created because Napster had one centralised search function, which the RIAA showed could be shut down, which effectively makes the network useless. So now it's decentralised, so even if they shut down the client application provider, they can't shut shown the network.
This CNET article on the topic points out one of the major flaws of the amnesty program.
"The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits."
The amnesty program would apply only to alleged infringers who have not been sued by the music industry trade group or identified by Internet service providers as a result of the trade group's subpoena process.
So they aren't even extending the amnesty to include everyone else who has already been caught. So they aren't going to let those people off with a slap on the wrists - they are going to make sure they are shown as examples to scare the rest of us. But I think they may be realising that with an ever decreasing turnover and profit, they can't really afford to sue another several hundred more users. So maybe by scaring/tricking everyone into deleting all their digital music they can slow the tide. But its not going to work. They have gone too far already and alienated too many people.
With CD's going the way of vinyl according to research by Forrester reported on cnn the RIAA needs to seriously relook at their strategies. Defending a dying business model and product is a sure way to go the way of the Dodo.
"If the trend continues, three years from now digital music sales could account for $1.4 billion of the music industry's $12.8 billion in expected revenues"
Is this the beginning of the end? When google stops returning the results I am looking for, it is time to start looking for a new search engine that will.
When I installed the latest version of KazaaLite it automatically copied the installation file into my shared folder. Just search for klitekpp242e.exe on Kazaa.
If you block them, how are the supposed to patch their machine?
How about netsending them with a message saying their machine has been infected with a virus - please go to x website to download and install the patch. Also give them a helpdesk phone number so they can be walked through the process. If they aren't tech savvy enough to be keeping their virus scanner up to date, they probably haven't turned off the messenger service either.
Slashdot Mirror
There seem to be 3 factors that will eventually determine who wins out:
1. Quality - If it is compressed it still needs to be good quality
2. Widespread adoption - If you can't encode and decode it wherever you want to use it, then it won't work for you.
3. Portability/Restrictions - Finding the right balance between copy protections wanted by the MPAA/RIAA and the portability wanted by the consumers.
This article over at cnet looks like Microsoft may actually be listening to the critics of trusted computing and rather moving towards what it calls Shield Technology - basically incorporating better firewall technology into the operating system. I for one would welcome this over trusted computing.
Movielink have also just announced a deal with Road Runner to deliver video on demand to Road Runner customers, including a free Movie of the Month.
Maybe Microsoft actually registered this patent not for themselves to actually use, but more as a defence against other patent lawsuits. Now if IBM try sure them for some infringement, they counter-sue with their own patent. The patent system is a mess, and all it does is make lawyers rich.
But there is the point - just because 50 million americans want to speed on the highways, doesn't mean they can (legally). If the majority believe that they should be able to say who can phone them, that they can download copyrighted material freely, speed on the roads, then what's to stop them from changing the laws to allow them to do that - that is democracy. Of course when the majority starts changing all the laws to suit them, it soon leads to anarchy and the eventual destruction of democracy, because very soon they realise they can have a law that gives them everything for free. Still, when a stupid law is passed, the majority should rise up to change that law. But otherwise, if you choose to live in a country, you choose to abide by the laws of that country.
Not without the risk of legal harrassment...
As has been shown with P2P, what 50 million americans want to be able to do, and what 50 million americans can do are two completely seperate things.
Are we sure Microsoft aren't involved in this project in some way?
Murphys Law - I have been meaning to take a look at it for a while, and am on capped bandwidth, so finally decided to bite the bullet and download all 700MB of it yesterday! Guess I am going to have to try order the cd now, or wait till next month. Surely they knew they were close to releasing the next version, and could of put a notice up yesterday or a couple of days ago saying that the new version was just days/hours away.
Bloated and overkill for just driving down the road to the shops.
In this article on on CNET O'Shaughnessy said "the service has been embraced by end users. "We've seen nothing but very positive results from the Internet community," he said. "Usage is extraordinary. Both individual users and enterprises are giving very positive feedback."
So they are attributing a slashdotting, and a lot of media interest to people being positive about the service. I haven't seen one article, comment or anything that was even remotely positive. What are these guys on?
He also claims they are fully compliant with every RFC. I don't see how this is possible, unless they have found some loophole.
Doesn't GTA have a mature rating?
Either way, a game isn't going to make some kid go out and pick up a gun and start killing people. There were serious problems there before the kid started playing the game. This is the parents trying to deflect the blame away from their poor parenting skills.
You also have to ask where these kids got the guns from. What parent leaves guns lying around that their kids can get access to.
Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to pass the buck.
"This case is about a fellow who made available 600 copyrighted works," Roberts said. "Is there any legitimate purpose for making available for copying 600 copyrighted works?"
Surely that question is for another court to decide, after the name has been released by the ISP through the subpeana process and the trial is in front of a jury - whatever happenned to innocent until proven guilty?
The question before this court is whether it is constitutional for the RIAA to issue the subpeana without being required to file a suit first, and whether it is constitutional for the RIAA to have that power, rather than a law enforcement agency.
I think the whole issue is that the RIAA is not a law enforcement agency and shouldn't have the powers of one. They should have to follow the same process as everyone else.
While P2P may be phased out by newer technologies, its main use - sharing files between users will not stop (a lot of them borderline legal to blatantly illegal). Look at the history of the Internet. First there were Newsgroups, FTP Servers (remember all those no leech policies), Bulletin Boards, Hotline, Napster, Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.
Since the beginning of the Internet people have wanted an easy and anonymous way of trading files. As each technology was foiled by the industry or upgraded by newer technology, one thing had remained constant - The sharing of files online.
That is not a fad - only the technologies supporting it.
Not so. These networks exist because there was something that Napster was inherently lacking - privacy. And these networks will continue to provide that, because the RIAA/MPAA won't be able to sue to receive personal information if no law is being infringed. So anyone who wants to trade files anonymously will still use these networks.
Wrong - Both Napster and all other P2P applications provide exactly the same level of privacy. Your IP is available through both services and nothing more.
These other P2P networks were created because Napster had one centralised search function, which the RIAA showed could be shut down, which effectively makes the network useless. So now it's decentralised, so even if they shut down the client application provider, they can't shut shown the network.
The RIAA Clean Slate Program (pdf)
The Affidavit (pdf)
Music United
These links are provided for info purposes, but I agree with the EFF - Don't Sign!
This CNET article on the topic points out one of the major flaws of the amnesty program.
"The group said it would not use the information gathered for marketing purposes or share it with any other group of copyright holders. Critics such as the EFF's von Lohmann dismissed the assurances, saying that the RIAA's privacy policy allowed the information to be shared if "required by law," a clause which could allow groups such as music publishers or Hollywood studios to subpoena the information from the RIAA to use in their own lawsuits."
The amnesty program would apply only to alleged infringers who have not been sued by the music industry trade group or identified by Internet service providers as a result of the trade group's subpoena process.
So they aren't even extending the amnesty to include everyone else who has already been caught. So they aren't going to let those people off with a slap on the wrists - they are going to make sure they are shown as examples to scare the rest of us. But I think they may be realising that with an ever decreasing turnover and profit, they can't really afford to sue another several hundred more users. So maybe by scaring/tricking everyone into deleting all their digital music they can slow the tide. But its not going to work. They have gone too far already and alienated too many people.
The writing is on the wall...
With CD's going the way of vinyl according to research by Forrester reported on cnn the RIAA needs to seriously relook at their strategies. Defending a dying business model and product is a sure way to go the way of the Dodo.
"If the trend continues, three years from now digital music sales could account for $1.4 billion of the music industry's $12.8 billion in expected revenues"
Is this the beginning of the end? When google stops returning the results I am looking for, it is time to start looking for a new search engine that will.
When I installed the latest version of KazaaLite it automatically copied the installation file into my shared folder. Just search for klitekpp242e.exe on Kazaa.
If you block them, how are the supposed to patch their machine?
How about netsending them with a message saying their machine has been infected with a virus - please go to x website to download and install the patch. Also give them a helpdesk phone number so they can be walked through the process.
If they aren't tech savvy enough to be keeping their virus scanner up to date, they probably haven't turned off the messenger service either.
"We're hoping we get a lot of attention paid to this and understand what impact would it have," he says.
I am thinking that they will have trouble finding any positive responses.
maybe he has a small penix...
Is it me, or was that one of the worst cameramen you have ever seen on the Nikki Hemming interview?
Zoom in, zoom out, quick pan left, quick pan right
I have a headache now from watching it.