And there is the crux of the confusion. Making one copy, especially of friends or family, should fall squarely in the realm of fair use EVEN IF you do not own the copyright. We're talking about a single, physical print in these cases. If you are stealing a picture, are you going to copy it one print at a time? Not likely (not even practical).
Just goes to show how out of balance all of the recently passed (ridiculous) copyright laws are.
Yes, I know, but the audio equipment I use these days isn't that high of a quality...you really can't tell the difference in things like iPods and such. Haven't bought quality audio hardware since the 60's (at least, I think I bought quality then...can't remember too clearly...oh oh flashback...ooh the pretty colors...)
Linspire is marketing their distro to retail outlets (Wal-Mart, Fry's, MicroCenter).
This illustrates one of the issues with current Linux distros (including Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.). Internet marketing of a replacment OS immediately rules out non-geeky people. That means 98% of the population. Linux has to be seen in the store where most non-geeks shop, otherwise they don't even know it exists until too late.
Let's see, I can take my family to the theater to watch a movie that may or may not be good, and in doing so spend $8 per person for tickets and $4 per person for snacks (for me, the total comes to $48). Or I can rent a DVD (or watch by PPV) for $5, provide my own (better) snacks at home, and watch the movie on my big screen HDTV. And, if the movie turns out to be really good, I can buy a DVD copy for about $25. If the movie turns out to be not that good(tm) (and 80% of the movies these days fall into this category IMNSHO), then I've not wasted significant dollars (and feel much better about myself cause I wasn't suckered in by some stupid and misleading movie trailer that convinced me to sit in a smelly, sticky theater for 2 hours where the 15 minutes of previews and commercials end up being more entertaining than the main feature).
That's correct. In their defense, Fry's is a warehouse store. You go in, you pick up what you want, you pay for it, you go out. They sell by low price not by store help. That is exactly why Fry's is the wrong place to market Linux.
And because Wal-Mart only sells Linux boxen (lol boxen) online. Micro Center is a great local computer store (much better than Besy Buy or Circuit City in my opinion) where you can go into the store and put your hands on the machine before you buy. Imagine if you will, trying a Windows machine next to a Linux machine...both surf the internet equally, apps are comparable, speed is comparable. The only practical difference is that the Linux computer is half the price of the Windows machine. For the budget conscience (especially first time computer buyers and parents buying their 4 year old their first computer), which would you pick?
I am a parent with a 2 year old. In 2 more years I know what OS my daughter will start with...
I used to live in Houston, TX (back when the world was young), and Micro Center was easily the best computer store in the city. They supported Windows and Mac equally, both with hardware, software, and classes. I am not surprised that they are doing so for Linux as well. In my opinion, this is exactly what Linux needs: Public exposure through a local store that can provide technical support to your average home user when it is needed.
I think it's time to give my local Micro Center store a visit.
Sony BMG will send them an email with a "back door" measure on how to work around the copy protection
Note: This was in the context of copying a Sony DRM protected song to your iPod...
This is a tacit admission by Sony that copying the song from the CD to another device falls within the realm of fair use (meaning you don't need Sony's permission to copy it yourself). Obviously most informed consumers believe that but some testamony in recent lawsuits have been arguing against it. It also means that Sony may have a difficult time suing anyone for breaking the new DRM if they plan to tell you how to do so themselves. It, however, could be a problem with the DMCA, as Sony might be telling you how to circumvent Apple's DRM. Should be interesting to see if Apple responds.
Hey TMM, good to hear from ya. Could be a concern. If you are going to rip a song and distribute it to friends, you certainly don't want to advertize the fact even if it was easy to do.
Personally, I don't believe in distributing -- I think copyright should be honored within the bounds of fair use. To that end, I routinely strip out any encumbrance that interferes with my fair use rights, mostly because I don't want to have to keep up with some technology for years to come just to listen to my legally obtained songs. So anytime I get a copy protected CD, I always save the songs to my computer for backup in 320k bit format, then remaster the CD to play the way I want it to. And keep the original CD for proof of ownership. Same goes for DVDs (plus, I dump the unable to skip advertisements MPAA thinks everyone wants to watch every time they watch a DVD). But that's just me.
It's good to see this. Credit to Microsoft for really trying. Not to be too kind to Microsoft, however, I think it is a lost cause to try and make Windows reasonably secure. Security is tough enough when you design for it from the start. Tacking security on never works. You reach a point where a fix in one place just creates a security hole somewhere else. But I guess it's better than doing nothing at all.
I would have to disagree. It is widely known that bittorrents can go to millions of users without any control over who gets a copy. If the MPAA sends out a file throught bittorent, they have no control over who gets it. One of the requirements to defend a copyright is for the copyright owner to define what ways constitute authorized copying. Bittorent would never be considered a controlled way to distribute because there is no control, therefore if the MPAA sent out a movie through bittorent, or authorized someone to do so for them, they would be approving a copy received through bittorrent as an approved copy. That means if you receive a copy through bittorrent, the copy would be legal.
On the other hand, if Direct Revenue LLC and Marketing Metrix Group did not get the MPAA's approval, they ARE distributing the movie and that makes them guilty of infringing. In addition, if the MPAA doesn't respond, the MPAA risks losing their copyright on the movies involved (you have to defend your copyright from known infringement or you can lose the copyright).
The bittorrent issue is 1) the vector is new, 2) bittorrent is very widely used, and 3) it's tough to track the original source of the spyware (except by knowing who publishes the spyware because of the name of the spyware program). Imagine injecting an unknown spyware program...or maybe a malicious worm...
Another good point on the AOL mail system vs. real internet mail. That actually might be the number one reason for the low count. Of course, now one has to wonder how the AOL subscribers who ARE flying a zombie managed to get that way...
If Direct Revenue LLC and Marketing Metrix Group are pulling real movies out of Bittorrent, adding spyware, and then reinjecting them into Bittorrent without the MPAA's permission, I am pretty sure that would constitute direct copyright infringement.
And if they are doing that WITH the MPAA's approval, I am pretty sure that the MPAA just lost the ability to sue over copyright infringement for those movies.
The MPAA poisoning p2p networks this way would lose the ability to sue over those files being shared, assuing the actual movie was attached to the adware.
Why stop there? We could block the top four in the US (AOL, Comcast, Southwestern Bell, and Verizon) and knock off probably 2/3rds of all the zombie computers in the world...
Unfortunately, if we do that I won't be able to read any of your future comments because I am using Comcast with my non-zombie machine.
A better solution might be if the ISP determines the machine is a zombie, route them to a packet filtering system and filter out all connection requests except for a web page that contained instructions and tools showing how to take back control. The home user would have to clean up the machine (or get someone to do it for them) before they could get back to the internet. This could be done but ISP's probably would rather not because of the support cost.
It's either that, or risk screwing up the home computer by trying some automatic cleanup over the connection.
Good point on the tunneling part but I would still like to see what IP address shows up on the outside world. I think a VPN arrangement would still show the broadband provider's IP. Don't know enough about how AOL sets it up to be sure.
Monopolies suck for the non-monopoly owner, no doubt about it. You should check out Verizon DSL. If you live close to a civilized part of Philadelphia, you may be able to get it at your house. Their basic DSL in Philly now offers the equivalent speed of the entry level internet cable at about 2/3s the price with no contract required. Plus, they have a sale untl the end of June, 2005 on the first three month's subscription and no signup charges (and no, I don't work at Verizon). If we all keep switching providers when they have a price cut, we can keep the pressure on:)
It's a good question. The truth is AOL isn't a real ISP. They are a proprietary system with access to the internet. Might be splitting hairs here but whatever. In any case, AOL has been trying to create an AOL broadband service. Not sure how successful that has been, but AOL does have partnership arrangements with other broadband providers where you connect to the broadband provider and then straight to AOL's system. I wonder how these kind of connections were counted? Probably not as an AOL IP address, cause the IP address would have been assigned to the broadband provider. Looks like another way to fudge the numbers to me...
Slashdot Mirror
And it wouldn't hurt to add a "Lance Croft" version for the girls...it would give cooperative network play a whole new dimension.
And there is the crux of the confusion. Making one copy, especially of friends or family, should fall squarely in the realm of fair use EVEN IF you do not own the copyright. We're talking about a single, physical print in these cases. If you are stealing a picture, are you going to copy it one print at a time? Not likely (not even practical).
Just goes to show how out of balance all of the recently passed (ridiculous) copyright laws are.
Yes, I know, but the audio equipment I use these days isn't that high of a quality...you really can't tell the difference in things like iPods and such. Haven't bought quality audio hardware since the 60's (at least, I think I bought quality then...can't remember too clearly...oh oh flashback...ooh the pretty colors...)
All I can say is: Cheap sells.
Linspire is marketing their distro to retail outlets (Wal-Mart, Fry's, MicroCenter).
This illustrates one of the issues with current Linux distros (including Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.). Internet marketing of a replacment OS immediately rules out non-geeky people. That means 98% of the population. Linux has to be seen in the store where most non-geeks shop, otherwise they don't even know it exists until too late.
Let's see, I can take my family to the theater to watch a movie that may or may not be good, and in doing so spend $8 per person for tickets and $4 per person for snacks (for me, the total comes to $48). Or I can rent a DVD (or watch by PPV) for $5, provide my own (better) snacks at home, and watch the movie on my big screen HDTV. And, if the movie turns out to be really good, I can buy a DVD copy for about $25. If the movie turns out to be not that good(tm) (and 80% of the movies these days fall into this category IMNSHO), then I've not wasted significant dollars (and feel much better about myself cause I wasn't suckered in by some stupid and misleading movie trailer that convinced me to sit in a smelly, sticky theater for 2 hours where the 15 minutes of previews and commercials end up being more entertaining than the main feature).
Besy Buy
In case anyone was wondering, that's the sister store to Best Buy.
Used to be true but Microsoft has had to back off a bit since the anti-trust trial they lost. Not much but just a bit...
That's correct. In their defense, Fry's is a warehouse store. You go in, you pick up what you want, you pay for it, you go out. They sell by low price not by store help. That is exactly why Fry's is the wrong place to market Linux.
And because Wal-Mart only sells Linux boxen (lol boxen) online. Micro Center is a great local computer store (much better than Besy Buy or Circuit City in my opinion) where you can go into the store and put your hands on the machine before you buy. Imagine if you will, trying a Windows machine next to a Linux machine...both surf the internet equally, apps are comparable, speed is comparable. The only practical difference is that the Linux computer is half the price of the Windows machine. For the budget conscience (especially first time computer buyers and parents buying their 4 year old their first computer), which would you pick?
I am a parent with a 2 year old. In 2 more years I know what OS my daughter will start with...
I used to live in Houston, TX (back when the world was young), and Micro Center was easily the best computer store in the city. They supported Windows and Mac equally, both with hardware, software, and classes. I am not surprised that they are doing so for Linux as well. In my opinion, this is exactly what Linux needs: Public exposure through a local store that can provide technical support to your average home user when it is needed.
I think it's time to give my local Micro Center store a visit.
Sony BMG will send them an email with a "back door" measure on how to work around the copy protection
Note: This was in the context of copying a Sony DRM protected song to your iPod...
This is a tacit admission by Sony that copying the song from the CD to another device falls within the realm of fair use (meaning you don't need Sony's permission to copy it yourself). Obviously most informed consumers believe that but some testamony in recent lawsuits have been arguing against it. It also means that Sony may have a difficult time suing anyone for breaking the new DRM if they plan to tell you how to do so themselves. It, however, could be a problem with the DMCA, as Sony might be telling you how to circumvent Apple's DRM. Should be interesting to see if Apple responds.
RIAA suddenly has many more viable targets
Hey TMM, good to hear from ya. Could be a concern. If you are going to rip a song and distribute it to friends, you certainly don't want to advertize the fact even if it was easy to do.
Personally, I don't believe in distributing -- I think copyright should be honored within the bounds of fair use. To that end, I routinely strip out any encumbrance that interferes with my fair use rights, mostly because I don't want to have to keep up with some technology for years to come just to listen to my legally obtained songs. So anytime I get a copy protected CD, I always save the songs to my computer for backup in 320k bit format, then remaster the CD to play the way I want it to. And keep the original CD for proof of ownership. Same goes for DVDs (plus, I dump the unable to skip advertisements MPAA thinks everyone wants to watch every time they watch a DVD). But that's just me.
You sure he didn't mean Windows when he said [e]veryone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is?
My computer just burst into flames...
It's good to see this. Credit to Microsoft for really trying. Not to be too kind to Microsoft, however, I think it is a lost cause to try and make Windows reasonably secure. Security is tough enough when you design for it from the start. Tacking security on never works. You reach a point where a fix in one place just creates a security hole somewhere else. But I guess it's better than doing nothing at all.
I would have to disagree. It is widely known that bittorrents can go to millions of users without any control over who gets a copy. If the MPAA sends out a file throught bittorent, they have no control over who gets it. One of the requirements to defend a copyright is for the copyright owner to define what ways constitute authorized copying. Bittorent would never be considered a controlled way to distribute because there is no control, therefore if the MPAA sent out a movie through bittorent, or authorized someone to do so for them, they would be approving a copy received through bittorrent as an approved copy. That means if you receive a copy through bittorrent, the copy would be legal.
On the other hand, if Direct Revenue LLC and Marketing Metrix Group did not get the MPAA's approval, they ARE distributing the movie and that makes them guilty of infringing. In addition, if the MPAA doesn't respond, the MPAA risks losing their copyright on the movies involved (you have to defend your copyright from known infringement or you can lose the copyright).
The bittorrent issue is 1) the vector is new, 2) bittorrent is very widely used, and 3) it's tough to track the original source of the spyware (except by knowing who publishes the spyware because of the name of the spyware program). Imagine injecting an unknown spyware program...or maybe a malicious worm...
Another good point on the AOL mail system vs. real internet mail. That actually might be the number one reason for the low count. Of course, now one has to wonder how the AOL subscribers who ARE flying a zombie managed to get that way...
If Direct Revenue LLC and Marketing Metrix Group are pulling real movies out of Bittorrent, adding spyware, and then reinjecting them into Bittorrent without the MPAA's permission, I am pretty sure that would constitute direct copyright infringement.
And if they are doing that WITH the MPAA's approval, I am pretty sure that the MPAA just lost the ability to sue over copyright infringement for those movies.
The MPAA poisoning p2p networks this way would lose the ability to sue over those files being shared, assuing the actual movie was attached to the adware.
Why stop there? We could block the top four in the US (AOL, Comcast, Southwestern Bell, and Verizon) and knock off probably 2/3rds of all the zombie computers in the world...
Unfortunately, if we do that I won't be able to read any of your future comments because I am using Comcast with my non-zombie machine.
A better solution might be if the ISP determines the machine is a zombie, route them to a packet filtering system and filter out all connection requests except for a web page that contained instructions and tools showing how to take back control. The home user would have to clean up the machine (or get someone to do it for them) before they could get back to the internet. This could be done but ISP's probably would rather not because of the support cost.
It's either that, or risk screwing up the home computer by trying some automatic cleanup over the connection.
Good point on the tunneling part but I would still like to see what IP address shows up on the outside world. I think a VPN arrangement would still show the broadband provider's IP. Don't know enough about how AOL sets it up to be sure.
Monopolies suck for the non-monopoly owner, no doubt about it. You should check out Verizon DSL. If you live close to a civilized part of Philadelphia, you may be able to get it at your house. Their basic DSL in Philly now offers the equivalent speed of the entry level internet cable at about 2/3s the price with no contract required. Plus, they have a sale untl the end of June, 2005 on the first three month's subscription and no signup charges (and no, I don't work at Verizon). If we all keep switching providers when they have a price cut, we can keep the pressure on :)
It's a good question. The truth is AOL isn't a real ISP. They are a proprietary system with access to the internet. Might be splitting hairs here but whatever. In any case, AOL has been trying to create an AOL broadband service. Not sure how successful that has been, but AOL does have partnership arrangements with other broadband providers where you connect to the broadband provider and then straight to AOL's system. I wonder how these kind of connections were counted? Probably not as an AOL IP address, cause the IP address would have been assigned to the broadband provider. Looks like another way to fudge the numbers to me...