There have been multiple cases in the US that have shown that the actual reporduction of digital copy occurs at the *server* not the client. Therefore, when I pay AllofMP3.com, the reproduction occurs in Russia, not in the US. In fact, the transaction occurs in Russia as well, on their (Russian) server. So not only does the sale occur in Russia, but so does the copying. So, they make a copy and send it over the wire to me. Let's assume for purposes of this argument that they have a legal license *in Russia* to make the copy. I'm aware that has come under fire recently, but that is not the focus of my argument right now.
The point is, since the (digital) copy was made in Russia (legally, we'll assume), and since US copyright law says that copyrighted material purchased overseas legally is legal to import into the US *for personal use*, I don't see the problem with AllofMP3.com.
It may still be illegal somehow, but if it is, it is by no means obvious to someone with a more-than-casual knowledge of the applicable laws. I would assert that a judge would have a good time working out the intricacies of the case, let alone your average citizen.
And to your last paragraph: I don't think I'm clever, but I know I can read. And what I read on copyright.gov
says it is illegal to import copyrighted material. BUT it doesn't apply to:
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or...
Now, you are free to say that I think I'm clever and that the exceptions are not sufficient, but your opinion aside, it sounds like it was written specifically for importation for personal use. You suggesting this is incorrect does not actually render it incorrect, especially in the absence of any argument indicating that it is.
Of course, the law is composed of both the legislation, as well as case history. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no case exists that would indicate that importation of this nature is illegal.
It's the same argument that calls firefox bloated that calls Linux bloated. It's simply not true.
The Right Way to do things is to make programs modular and pluggable. That's the route that Mozilla took with Firefox. It's the same route that good distributions take with Linux: start off with a minimally configured system, and let YOU, the user, add the pieces you want.
The idea that Fedora Core, SuSe, and Mandrake have about the "default" install including the kitchen sink is what gives the architects of Unix/Linux heartburn. They are Windows-izing Linux (i.e. making it monolithic), which was built with the Unix philosophy: make a bunch of small tools that work together to achieve great things. Making an enourmous default install is not a Good Thing.
Slackware (as you mention), as well as Debian and Gentoo have retained the core philosophy of handing you a minimally capable system to start off, and let you determine what you want to run on it. This way, one of your first steps isn't to *disable* sendmail because it's bloating your startup process. Or netmount, or nfs, or cupsd, or whatever. You start off with nothing, and you can add what few things you need. This way, things stay lean.
That system is not bloated, it simply provides options while staying streamlined. That's what Linux was meant to be, and that's the core design philosophy behind Firefox as well. I know calling everything modern "bloated" is popular, but it's simply not true.
I reasonably expect is SHOULD be legal. Lets look at a (serious) review of the facts: 1) The site claimed they paid the appropriate fees for the copyrighted material in Russia. 2) People who are downloading are downloading for personal use, and not redistributing in the U.S. (or at least I am) 3) U.S. copyright law has a section about imports. This section (in rough terms) says that if you bought it legally in a foreign country, that it is legal for you to use it in the U.S. for personal use, and without further redistribution.
I found (1) to be plausible, and I know (2) is true (because I know my own actions), and I went to read the law on (3). In fact, the only one I didn't have direct knowledge of was (1), although the site itself claimed that it was in compliance, which is a reasonable enough for most people (including me).
So, I'm failing to see how I should "reasonably suspect" this should be illegal. I know if AllofMP3 were in the US it would be illegal (the RIAA would never license the music for so little), but in Russia the laws are different. I'm paying money for a product I can use (Vorbis format music) that is download-only. I don't see how it *should* be illegal. I'm not breaking copyright law, and I don't use P2P to "share" my collection. I just listen at home (and in my car).
I guess maybe the difference is that everyone here expects that they should be routinely screwed by big labels. I believe that "fair use" includes music I can actually use (i.e. copy to different computers and listen on whatever device I happen to buy), as well as be available for a decent price. I'd be happy to pay more than $0.02/MB, but right now, there are no sites that support Linux, offer Vorbis, and have a big selection other than AllofMP3. I use Magnatune, actually, but they are kind of a small operation right now.
Anyway, I ramble. Bottom line: the underground piracy scene for music doesn NOT exist because there isn't sufficient DRM in place. It exists because the price point is simply too high. If we had a site that offered DRM free downloads for $0.10-$0.20 / MB (offering encode-on-the-fly so you could pick your format), a lot of the incentive people have to pirate would simply disappear. Primarily, I think inconvenience drives piracy. This isn't always true, but there would be a profitable market for what I describe. Especially if they kept up their campaign to put a stop to "big distributers" online; if they make it obvious that it is wrong (and punished a few people as they're doing now), and ALSO provide a decent alternative with all the benefits for a reasonable price (whatever, $0.10 - $0.20 a MB seems fine), people will buy. This would be close to $8 at the low end for a 14 track album with tracks averaging 4 MB, and twice that much at the high end.
Make sure you understand "lifetime"...
on
Can TiVo be Saved?
·
· Score: 1
I am building a MythTV box. My friend (not as tech-saavy) bought Tivo, but he did his research on the Tivo "lifetime" membership, and determined it was pretty much a wash as to whether the month-to-month or "lifetime" was better. Here's a section directly from the Tivo website that pertains:
Conditions of use
A product lifetime subscription to the TiVo service covers the life of the TiVo Digital Video Recorder (DVR) you buy--not the life of the subscriber. The product lifetime subscription accompanies the product in case of ownership transfer. The subscription remains in effect if your DVR needs to be repaired or replaced due to a malfunction (see manufacturer warranty details). Because a product lifetime subscription is linked to a particular DVR, it cannot be transferred to any other DVR (unless the DVR is replaced due to a malfunction covered by the manufacturer's warranty). Each DVR purchased requires its own service subscription and activation.
Of course, hardware products don't last forever and their lifespan will vary among individual products. TiVo makes no representations or warranties as to the expected lifetime of the product aside from the manufacturer's warranty.
So you see what I mean. Don't be confused about "lifetime" membership. When my friend asked how long Tivo boxes last, the representative on the phone said "Well, about 2.5 to 3 years". If you do the math, it's pretty close to what you'd pay for the lifetime subscription.
Linux has been my hobby, and because of that, became my job. I simply love tinkering with it. But hey, my wife, both my sisters, and my parents are more like you (as are most people), and I am reminded daily of what regular people, or half-techie people (as you say) need.
With a due sense of caution, I assert that you could, once installed, manage a Gentoo system quite easily. Indeed, you would find it to be a fabulous investment. The documentation rivals anything put out by anyone else, and the message boards are fantastic. Once you got used to searching for programs and installing them effortlessly using portage, you'd wonder how you ever did it any other way. The commands are simple, though there is a learning curve in other areas (USE flags come to mind - they're great, but can be daunting as hell at first). But it is a great way to spend 10 hours of your life.
Don't get me wrong...I don't recommend Gentoo to Joe Blow, but if you tried RedHat and didn't like it (RPM distros suffer from dependecy hell, a most aptly named syndrome), you may be interested. You brought yourself far enough to pick up Linux in the first place, you may just find that Gentoo has the things you thought were missing from other distros.
In any case, you did not offend me. Your position is far more valid than mine (in terms of how many people it applies to), and we need to find a way to retain the power of a well-designed OS like Gentoo and make it more accessible. So maybe we agree. =) Here's to hoping IBM can help work towards that goal.
You're sorely mistaken about the nature of Gentoo package management. It uses ebuilds, which are simply scripts, and they are stored centrally. But they can be scripted to pull files from anywhere, and perform actions to install them. The files the ebuild grabs do not have to be grabbed from a central server (many are not), and if I want to add a package, I can. That's why Gentoo has an ebuild for NVidia drivers, VMWare, and JEdit. Whereas Debian has none of these. RPM based distros have similar problems. Ebuilds don't even have to break EULAs - you can program the ebuild to download the files from the owner's site, so there is no issue of distribution right infringement.
Bottom line: Windows could perfectly well use and ebuild system, and indeed, any OS could. Ebuilds are extremely flexible, and as far as I can tell, they are The Right Way to handle software installs.
For one, package management varies 180 degrees from distro to distro.
I actually like a lot of distros from a design perspective, but I simply cannot stand RPM as a package managemrent system. This could well be because I am not doing this "correctly", but even with yum, I feel like the entire package design was never meant for a centralized, automated repository, and it breaks my heart that so many great distros use it (SuSe is one I love except for RPM).
Enter debian, which changed my Linux world as far as package management. It is head and shoulders above the RPM distros. I abandoned it because of the complexity of maintaining a cutting edge desktop that was reasonably stable. I found that upgrading a single package would sometimes bring down the house of cards of my carefully balanced dependencies between testing and unstable. Meh.
So, here I am, another Slashbot Gentoo fanboi. I run Gentoo on all my home computers (MythTV AMD Athlon XP box, AMD 64 desktop and Centrino laptop) and couldn't be more satisfied. It is package management nirvana...even major upgrades for for KDE, xorg-x11 or compiler upgrades go fairly smoothly. My only real gripe is that sometimes people post ebiuld that haven't been tested, so things can break "for no reason" and you have to go read around the forums to see if it's you, or something in the ebuild repository. I really don't mind waiting a couple of minutes for most compiles. Even kde-base and xorg-x11 are OK, I just leave them overnight. Besides, if you need to get up an moving in a hurry, just use the reference platform to get running, and compile in the background.
My point is that railing on "Linux package mangement" is a bit broad...I haven't even addressed Slackware packages because I don't know how they work (it's the only major distro that I've never used). And I'll tell you what: all of them are light years ahead of Windows.
Oh, BTW, I ran KDE on a PII 400 with no problems. And that was the MORE bulky KDE 2. KDE 3 is actually lighter as far as runtime resources. Linux is all about customization...you just have to know where to trim the fat. =)
Something about it rings dishonest to me, however. What people here are forgetting is that interoperability is considered to be somewhat sacred, at least under copyright law and the DMCA. In others words, our government, as well as citizens, recognize that people want products from one company to work with those from another. Imagine Ford cars only worked with Ford oil, Ford gasloine, and Ford parts. Many of you would the claim that "Ford has a right to do that, since its THEIR car."
Well, not quite. Sure, they can withhold warranty service if you use parts that are not from Ford. But what if they offered FREE replacement on windhsield wipers for the life of the car. So you've been happily replacing your wipers at the nearest dealer for years, and then all of a sudden the little machine that dispenses the wipers rejects you, saying "Hey, you're not using Ford gas or Ford oil, and I notice you replaced your gas cap with a generic brand, NOT a Ford brand, sorry, no wipers for you!"
That's not OK, since you bought a Ford car, and they're denying you what all the other customers got that bought the same thing. This is the analogy to someone who chooses to buy MS Office and run it under Crossover. While it may not be a "supported" setup, it is by no means their right to INTENTIONALLY make the product not operate with a competitor's software. But the haziness in this situation stems from our own mis-impression of what software is. I wrote a piece on it, bascially saying we should ditch software as a "product" and pay for it in a way that reflects what is really is, a relationship and mainly, an ongoing service.
This only applies if you're a customer...if not, well, too bad. No free stuff for you! =)
This "article" doesn't actually provide with any information in what WAY the results were obtained.
From an admin perspective, I want to know what the vulnerbilities were, and what their definition of "vulnerable" is - especially if they say "Windows had 30 days of vulnerbaility, versus 71 for Linux".
On that topic, when are we going to get past the label "Linux"? There is no such thing. There's RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, and Debian (among hundreds of others) and they all handle security differently. I'm sure I could find distros LESS secure than Windows, and I'm sure I could find distros unquestionably MORE secure, as well.
Ah, well, I guess I'll wait for the report. I would have preferred a headline: "OS Zealots Face Off in an Anecdotal RedHat vs. Windows Web Server Security Showdown - IIS Triumphs"
I suspect you're posting was of good intent, and not a troll. I will therefore do my best to address you seriously.
First, I believe you are mistaken with respect to the bnetd case. I direct you to the judge's
finding.
This case touches on many aspects of intellectual property law, and that is the reason I have written at least twoarticles on the topic. To briefly summarize for the impatient:
Without discussing other aspects of the case, the judge ruled on two very important topics: enforceability of EULAs, and first sale doctrine.
First, in pages 17-19, the court found the EULAs were indeed enforceable. This finding hinges on two facts:
The defendents clicked on "I Agree"
Under UCC (Uniform Commercial Code), "a contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existance of such a contract."
Let's focus for a moment on what has just happened. They have found that because of (1), the UCC binds them to the EULA because a sale took place.
Next, regarding the first sale doctrine on pages 19 and 20, the judge then argues that no sale has taken place, and therefore the first sale doctrine is not applicable: "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." ...
The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that the title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendents do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here.[Emphasis mine]
This is incredible on a few levels. First, the court finds that EULAs are enforceable once you click "I Agree" because the software is sold, and that the first sale doctrine does not apply to software (of any kind!) because it is not a sale. Not only does this case touch on these points, but makes findings so broad as to affect all of software, and does so in a way that is self contradictory! This finding would even affect the ability for game buy-back stores to continue operation legally, since practically NO software is "sold", it is rather "licensed".
Anyone who is interested in a more detailed discussion are free to read the articles I wrote available on etherplex.
Very clever, except a judge just found that the Right of First Sale does not apply to software. This was a case we all know a lot about, and it was WITH BLIZZARD! It's the bnetd case, you can go to www.eff.org and read the finding. Effectively, the judge claimed that the Doctrine of First Sale does not apply to software since you're not buying the software, the software is only licensed to you. This is BS, as we all know it. So, as you said, Blizzard is allowing transfer of the physical CD, but now won't allow the creation of an account using that trnasferred CD. While this is clearly Blizzard's fault, it really highlights how screwed up our notions of "buy" and "ownership" are.
So, yeah, Blizzard owns the software, but you have a license to use it, and you have the right to transfer that license (which Blizzard calls "The Game"), along with your copy of the The Game (which they own) to someone else, but not the account you created with the key that came with the game. But you can transfer the key itself, under law AND their EULA, except that the tranferee can't use the key to make the account pursuant to their Terms of Service, basically rendering the license they bought to use Blizzard's game worthless.
Make all the excuses you want about "Oh, he should have known" but this is truly absurd. The situation is simple:
Even for someone who read the EULA, there is every expectation that the termination of the license for the original user, and a transfer of the CD, etc. to a new user would allow that user to play the game, and it doesn't.
Yes, but I can rent a DVD from the library as well, and it is free. I specifically mentioned that libraries have VHS, DVDs and CDs and no one claims those rentals as "lost sales" even though they are free to the public.
Good thing there is no competition in the DVD business, because it is a monopoly. Who is the MPAA going to lose business to because it "losing" 4% of its sales? No one...there is no competitor.
And on the issue of "lost sales": do publishers include all the "lost sales" for every book someone pulls off the shelf at their local library? I don't understand why people buy their crappy arguments. Libraries are basically publicly funded repositories of copyrighted information that people can share. I bet if I proposed creating a "public library" (assuming none existed) and brought the proposal to the MPAA or RIAA, I would be laughed out of the room. They'd tell me to go fuck myself and pay them for my own copy. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in other arenas, and people seem to think it's OK.
All cliches aside, a lot of information (not all) really *is* supposed to be "free", or at least publically accessible without charge, just as is the case with a library. Actually, most societies think that knowledge in general should be free, and most governments support publically funded schools, as well as libraries.
I think perhaps what we need to really move forward in this arena is to have digital, internet libraries. Download the book you want to read, just as if you were taking it out of the library. Libraries have movies and music now, too. It's the same as your local library, it just is more convenient, and perhaps more complete.
The motivation to take someone to court is almost always at least two-fold: 1) Settle the outstanding issue that needs be resolved.
2) Establish a precendent.
(2) is much more valuable than (1) in the long run. Though the actual DVD format may become passe, the issues addressed here will not, at least not as quickly.
Honestly, I am always pleased when something like this goes to court, since it is a demonstration that people are willing to put their money towards causes that benefit the consumer.
Sure, you can point out that "Hey, people could Netflix everything and then they'd get to watch the DVD whenever they want without buying it!". Two important points need to be made about this argument: 1) Netflix basically already does this, it is simply a matter of convenience - with Netflix, I can see *anything I want* I just have to wait for them to ship it to me. Where do you want to draw the line on convenience? 2) So what? So people *can* misuse the system. People can misuse a hammer too. Or a spray can. Or a car. For some reason, the public-at-large has bought into the idea that their fundamental fair use rights (not having to put in a DVD every time they want to watch a movie) are forgone since the RIAA and MPAA have trouble enforcing copyright law inside someone's home.
I always hated having to bring game CDs along with me when I travelled because of the cd check. I hated having to bring CDs, DVDs, and PS2 games as well. The sooner we move to a system where I can have the convenience I want, the sooner I will have more respect for the folks that supply to material.
The are lots of counter-arguments to this, but let's face it: we all know digital distribution is coming because it is cheaper and more convenient. The industry needs to stop fighting the tide and allow people to access entertainment in a convenient way, that is in touch with modern technology.
I'm not too much in the know about bio-tech, but it seems that this HIV-transport-for-another-virus doesn't actually attack the cancer:
The researchers programmed the altered virus package to attack a protein on the cancer cell surface called p-glycoprotein, which causes problems in cancer patients by shuttling cancer drugs away from the cell. In other words, p-glycoprotein causes resistance to cancer medication. Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
Except for the last sentence, it makes it seem as though this is only a way to pave the way for more conventional treatments. The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, given the context. I can understand how the proteins on the surface of a cell could qualify as "molecules", but then the structure of the sentence makes it seem like they're calling brain and blood cells molecules:
He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
I'm still waiting for a virus that attacks the actual cancer cells. I remember hearing something about it a while back, but then it seemed to die off. Anyone been following it?
Interestingly, when this service comes out, someone will create a way to grab the songs "in transit" can save them. There will be lawsuits under the DMCA, and it could quite possibly lead to a challenging of the Betamax case, since the analogy is so close:
In Betamax, the court ruled that time-shifting of content supplied over a subscription service is fair use.
With Napster, the exact same model wold be in place. It will be very interesting to see how it goes.
It's clear that you completely missed my point. I was rebutting the statement that they can revoke your right to use their software after you pay whenever they want. They can't. It's as simple as that.
The first half of your post simply restates exactly what I asserted: they owe you exactly what they agreed to: the right to play their game. And if they restrict you to online play only on their servers, then they owe you those servers, since you can't get *what you paid for* otherwise.
If you breach the agreement, then the agreement is void. That is the way contracts work.
What I'm driving at here is that I think we basically agree...I wonder why you posted as if you disagree. Most all of your points coincide with what I thought I was saying.
Re-read what I wrote, and what you wrote - I think you'll see what I'm saying. =)
In order:
That line is patently false. It is worded in such a way as to construe [decompile, modify, reverse engineer, disassemble] as forms of [reproduce]. Complete BS. They are using rhetorical parallelism to attempt to equate reverse engineering (a protected right of the *consumer*) with reproduction (a protected right of the *copyright holder*).
And yes, it is a video game quote - probably one of the most philosophical video games ever, and rated as Best PC Game Ever by PC Gamer before Half-Life 2 rolled around. I still think it's better than HL2, but that is neither here nor there.
Wow, slashdot mods are quite a bunch (heh, I should know, I'm one of em). If ever an insightful post was written, here it is, and yet the mindless slashbot "Teh weaponz WeRe NOT in AyRaq!!!" posts getting modded +5 and this one languishes with no mods.
I know Slashdot is a left-leaning place (hey, that's OK), but this is the worst I've seen. Before politics, we're supposed to be nerds - you know, people who like to argue intelligently (and hack stuff!). Maybe I'm just expecting too much.
No, it is they who are priviledged: priviledged to be able to put a product to market that they may or may not be lucky enough to have me actually PAY for.
You've got everything backwards; they are at the consumer's mercy, not the other way around. You are correct that I do not "own" the software I "buy", but I own the right to use it, and you are incorrect when you say they can revoke it at any time. They cannot - when you buy the software, you have entered into an agreement. As soon as they take your money, they OWE you the right to play that game or use that piece of software. If it requires online access through one of their servers, they OWE you servers that are operational so you can use the product you paid them money for. And, in fact, I can do most anything I want with it, so long as it does not infringe on their rights granted by copyright law.
Some licenses do mention "no reverse engineering". There are two main points to mention in that regard: 1) Reverse engineering is a well recognized, legitimate activity within copyright law. Both copyright law itself, as well as the DMCA have exclusions for reverse engineering. Acting like it is a bad thing is absurd. 2) Very few companies prohibit reverse engineering in the EULA (Blizzard is one that I know of that does prohibit it). This is because they know that reverse engineering is (generally) protected, so long as it does not facilitate unauthorized distribution of the software (hence, the DMCA).
Lastly, to make an argument that someone should EXPECT for a EULA to contain wording that removes their rights, to which they should adhere, without ever SEEING the contract BEFORE the sale takes place is completely inane. This is a reflection of the *sad* state our copyright system has fallen into. You're a consumer, you should be fighting for your rights. As the adage goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The moment we (as a population) stop caring about our rights, is the moment they will be taken away.
Do not forget: "Beware those who would deny you information, for in their hearts they dream themselves your master."
"Mozilla" was an browser identifier string ten years ago. Netscape used it as a codename for some of their code, and it existed as a compatibility identifer long before Mozilla.org existed. Since IE was directly competing with Netscape, they wanted webpages to believe they were "mozilla comptaible", hence the browser identifier, which says as much (last I checked it says it is IE, but tags that with "mozilla compatible".)
When Netscape open-sourced their browser to save the server market from MS's clutches, the foundation that grabbed the source and moved forward with it needed a name, and Mozilla seemed appropriate as any. Rest assured, however, that Netscape and MS were using "mozilla" as a browser identifer string before Mozilla (the browser) existed.
If you want more informaion on the odd world of broswer identifier tags, go into Konqueror sometime and check the tag-spoofing options. Many will say "mozilla compatible", because that's really the standard.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, since the (digital) copy was made in Russia (legally, we'll assume), and since US copyright law says that copyrighted material purchased overseas legally is legal to import into the US *for personal use*, I don't see the problem with AllofMP3.com.
It may still be illegal somehow, but if it is, it is by no means obvious to someone with a more-than-casual knowledge of the applicable laws. I would assert that a judge would have a good time working out the intricacies of the case, let alone your average citizen.
And to your last paragraph: I don't think I'm clever, but I know I can read. And what I read on copyright.gov says it is illegal to import copyrighted material. BUT it doesn't apply to:
(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or ...
Now, you are free to say that I think I'm clever and that the exceptions are not sufficient, but your opinion aside, it sounds like it was written specifically for importation for personal use. You suggesting this is incorrect does not actually render it incorrect, especially in the absence of any argument indicating that it is.
Of course, the law is composed of both the legislation, as well as case history. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, no case exists that would indicate that importation of this nature is illegal.
Here is my other post on this topic.
US Copyright law says no such thing.
There, don't you feel better?
Research before you act like an asshole.
No, it's not called bloat.
It's the same argument that calls firefox bloated that calls Linux bloated. It's simply not true.
The Right Way to do things is to make programs modular and pluggable. That's the route that Mozilla took with Firefox. It's the same route that good distributions take with Linux: start off with a minimally configured system, and let YOU, the user, add the pieces you want.
The idea that Fedora Core, SuSe, and Mandrake have about the "default" install including the kitchen sink is what gives the architects of Unix/Linux heartburn. They are Windows-izing Linux (i.e. making it monolithic), which was built with the Unix philosophy: make a bunch of small tools that work together to achieve great things. Making an enourmous default install is not a Good Thing.
Slackware (as you mention), as well as Debian and Gentoo have retained the core philosophy of handing you a minimally capable system to start off, and let you determine what you want to run on it. This way, one of your first steps isn't to *disable* sendmail because it's bloating your startup process. Or netmount, or nfs, or cupsd, or whatever. You start off with nothing, and you can add what few things you need. This way, things stay lean.
That system is not bloated, it simply provides options while staying streamlined. That's what Linux was meant to be, and that's the core design philosophy behind Firefox as well. I know calling everything modern "bloated" is popular, but it's simply not true.
I reasonably expect is SHOULD be legal. Lets look at a (serious) review of the facts:
1) The site claimed they paid the appropriate fees for the copyrighted material in Russia.
2) People who are downloading are downloading for personal use, and not redistributing in the U.S. (or at least I am)
3) U.S. copyright law has a section about imports. This section (in rough terms) says that if you bought it legally in a foreign country, that it is legal for you to use it in the U.S. for personal use, and without further redistribution.
I found (1) to be plausible, and I know (2) is true (because I know my own actions), and I went to read the law on (3). In fact, the only one I didn't have direct knowledge of was (1), although the site itself claimed that it was in compliance, which is a reasonable enough for most people (including me).
So, I'm failing to see how I should "reasonably suspect" this should be illegal. I know if AllofMP3 were in the US it would be illegal (the RIAA would never license the music for so little), but in Russia the laws are different. I'm paying money for a product I can use (Vorbis format music) that is download-only. I don't see how it *should* be illegal. I'm not breaking copyright law, and I don't use P2P to "share" my collection. I just listen at home (and in my car).
I guess maybe the difference is that everyone here expects that they should be routinely screwed by big labels. I believe that "fair use" includes music I can actually use (i.e. copy to different computers and listen on whatever device I happen to buy), as well as be available for a decent price. I'd be happy to pay more than $0.02/MB, but right now, there are no sites that support Linux, offer Vorbis, and have a big selection other than AllofMP3. I use Magnatune, actually, but they are kind of a small operation right now.
Anyway, I ramble. Bottom line: the underground piracy scene for music doesn NOT exist because there isn't sufficient DRM in place. It exists because the price point is simply too high. If we had a site that offered DRM free downloads for $0.10-$0.20 / MB (offering encode-on-the-fly so you could pick your format), a lot of the incentive people have to pirate would simply disappear. Primarily, I think inconvenience drives piracy. This isn't always true, but there would be a profitable market for what I describe. Especially if they kept up their campaign to put a stop to "big distributers" online; if they make it obvious that it is wrong (and punished a few people as they're doing now), and ALSO provide a decent alternative with all the benefits for a reasonable price (whatever, $0.10 - $0.20 a MB seems fine), people will buy. This would be close to $8 at the low end for a 14 track album with tracks averaging 4 MB, and twice that much at the high end.
Conditions of use
A product lifetime subscription to the TiVo service covers the life of the TiVo Digital Video Recorder (DVR) you buy--not the life of the subscriber. The product lifetime subscription accompanies the product in case of ownership transfer. The subscription remains in effect if your DVR needs to be repaired or replaced due to a malfunction (see manufacturer warranty details). Because a product lifetime subscription is linked to a particular DVR, it cannot be transferred to any other DVR (unless the DVR is replaced due to a malfunction covered by the manufacturer's warranty). Each DVR purchased requires its own service subscription and activation.
Of course, hardware products don't last forever and their lifespan will vary among individual products. TiVo makes no representations or warranties as to the expected lifetime of the product aside from the manufacturer's warranty.
So you see what I mean. Don't be confused about "lifetime" membership. When my friend asked how long Tivo boxes last, the representative on the phone said "Well, about 2.5 to 3 years". If you do the math, it's pretty close to what you'd pay for the lifetime subscription.
Oh, and linkage for those that'd like to see the actual text:
Click on the "Product Lifetime" link
If you read GP post, you'll see they were talking about a bootable CD that performed the operation.
Well put. I recognize and respect your position.
Linux has been my hobby, and because of that, became my job. I simply love tinkering with it. But hey, my wife, both my sisters, and my parents are more like you (as are most people), and I am reminded daily of what regular people, or half-techie people (as you say) need.
With a due sense of caution, I assert that you could, once installed, manage a Gentoo system quite easily. Indeed, you would find it to be a fabulous investment. The documentation rivals anything put out by anyone else, and the message boards are fantastic. Once you got used to searching for programs and installing them effortlessly using portage, you'd wonder how you ever did it any other way. The commands are simple, though there is a learning curve in other areas (USE flags come to mind - they're great, but can be daunting as hell at first). But it is a great way to spend 10 hours of your life.
Don't get me wrong...I don't recommend Gentoo to Joe Blow, but if you tried RedHat and didn't like it (RPM distros suffer from dependecy hell, a most aptly named syndrome), you may be interested. You brought yourself far enough to pick up Linux in the first place, you may just find that Gentoo has the things you thought were missing from other distros.
In any case, you did not offend me. Your position is far more valid than mine (in terms of how many people it applies to), and we need to find a way to retain the power of a well-designed OS like Gentoo and make it more accessible. So maybe we agree. =) Here's to hoping IBM can help work towards that goal.
You're sorely mistaken about the nature of Gentoo package management. It uses ebuilds, which are simply scripts, and they are stored centrally. But they can be scripted to pull files from anywhere, and perform actions to install them. The files the ebuild grabs do not have to be grabbed from a central server (many are not), and if I want to add a package, I can. That's why Gentoo has an ebuild for NVidia drivers, VMWare, and JEdit. Whereas Debian has none of these. RPM based distros have similar problems. Ebuilds don't even have to break EULAs - you can program the ebuild to download the files from the owner's site, so there is no issue of distribution right infringement.
Bottom line: Windows could perfectly well use and ebuild system, and indeed, any OS could. Ebuilds are extremely flexible, and as far as I can tell, they are The Right Way to handle software installs.
For one, package management varies 180 degrees from distro to distro.
I actually like a lot of distros from a design perspective, but I simply cannot stand RPM as a package managemrent system. This could well be because I am not doing this "correctly", but even with yum, I feel like the entire package design was never meant for a centralized, automated repository, and it breaks my heart that so many great distros use it (SuSe is one I love except for RPM).
Enter debian, which changed my Linux world as far as package management. It is head and shoulders above the RPM distros. I abandoned it because of the complexity of maintaining a cutting edge desktop that was reasonably stable. I found that upgrading a single package would sometimes bring down the house of cards of my carefully balanced dependencies between testing and unstable. Meh.
So, here I am, another Slashbot Gentoo fanboi. I run Gentoo on all my home computers (MythTV AMD Athlon XP box, AMD 64 desktop and Centrino laptop) and couldn't be more satisfied. It is package management nirvana...even major upgrades for for KDE, xorg-x11 or compiler upgrades go fairly smoothly. My only real gripe is that sometimes people post ebiuld that haven't been tested, so things can break "for no reason" and you have to go read around the forums to see if it's you, or something in the ebuild repository. I really don't mind waiting a couple of minutes for most compiles. Even kde-base and xorg-x11 are OK, I just leave them overnight. Besides, if you need to get up an moving in a hurry, just use the reference platform to get running, and compile in the background.
My point is that railing on "Linux package mangement" is a bit broad...I haven't even addressed Slackware packages because I don't know how they work (it's the only major distro that I've never used). And I'll tell you what: all of them are light years ahead of Windows.
Oh, BTW, I ran KDE on a PII 400 with no problems. And that was the MORE bulky KDE 2. KDE 3 is actually lighter as far as runtime resources. Linux is all about customization...you just have to know where to trim the fat. =)
This is an interesting case.
Something about it rings dishonest to me, however. What people here are forgetting is that interoperability is considered to be somewhat sacred, at least under copyright law and the DMCA. In others words, our government, as well as citizens, recognize that people want products from one company to work with those from another. Imagine Ford cars only worked with Ford oil, Ford gasloine, and Ford parts. Many of you would the claim that "Ford has a right to do that, since its THEIR car."
Well, not quite. Sure, they can withhold warranty service if you use parts that are not from Ford. But what if they offered FREE replacement on windhsield wipers for the life of the car. So you've been happily replacing your wipers at the nearest dealer for years, and then all of a sudden the little machine that dispenses the wipers rejects you, saying "Hey, you're not using Ford gas or Ford oil, and I notice you replaced your gas cap with a generic brand, NOT a Ford brand, sorry, no wipers for you!"
That's not OK, since you bought a Ford car, and they're denying you what all the other customers got that bought the same thing. This is the analogy to someone who chooses to buy MS Office and run it under Crossover. While it may not be a "supported" setup, it is by no means their right to INTENTIONALLY make the product not operate with a competitor's software. But the haziness in this situation stems from our own mis-impression of what software is. I wrote a piece on it, bascially saying we should ditch software as a "product" and pay for it in a way that reflects what is really is, a relationship and mainly, an ongoing service.
This only applies if you're a customer...if not, well, too bad. No free stuff for you! =)
This "article" doesn't actually provide with any information in what WAY the results were obtained.
From an admin perspective, I want to know what the vulnerbilities were, and what their definition of "vulnerable" is - especially if they say "Windows had 30 days of vulnerbaility, versus 71 for Linux".
On that topic, when are we going to get past the label "Linux"? There is no such thing. There's RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, and Debian (among hundreds of others) and they all handle security differently. I'm sure I could find distros LESS secure than Windows, and I'm sure I could find distros unquestionably MORE secure, as well.
Ah, well, I guess I'll wait for the report. I would have preferred a headline:
"OS Zealots Face Off in an Anecdotal RedHat vs. Windows Web Server Security Showdown - IIS Triumphs"
First, I believe you are mistaken with respect to the bnetd case. I direct you to the judge's finding.
This case touches on many aspects of intellectual property law, and that is the reason I have written at least two articles on the topic. To briefly summarize for the impatient:
Without discussing other aspects of the case, the judge ruled on two very important topics: enforceability of EULAs, and first sale doctrine.
First, in pages 17-19, the court found the EULAs were indeed enforceable. This finding hinges on two facts:
Let's focus for a moment on what has just happened. They have found that because of (1), the UCC binds them to the EULA because a sale took place.
Next, regarding the first sale doctrine on pages 19 and 20, the judge then argues that no sale has taken place, and therefore the first sale doctrine is not applicable:
...
"The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement."
The EULAs and TOU in this case explicitly state that the title and ownership of the games and Battle.net remain with Blizzard. Defendents do not produce sufficient evidence demonstrating that title and ownership of the games passed to them. Therefore the Court finds that the first sale doctrine is inapplicable here. [Emphasis mine]
This is incredible on a few levels. First, the court finds that EULAs are enforceable once you click "I Agree" because the software is sold, and that the first sale doctrine does not apply to software (of any kind!) because it is not a sale. Not only does this case touch on these points, but makes findings so broad as to affect all of software, and does so in a way that is self contradictory! This finding would even affect the ability for game buy-back stores to continue operation legally, since practically NO software is "sold", it is rather "licensed".
Anyone who is interested in a more detailed discussion are free to read the articles I wrote available on etherplex.
Very clever, except a judge just found that the Right of First Sale does not apply to software. This was a case we all know a lot about, and it was WITH BLIZZARD! It's the bnetd case, you can go to www.eff.org and read the finding.
Effectively, the judge claimed that the Doctrine of First Sale does not apply to software since you're not buying the software, the software is only licensed to you.
This is BS, as we all know it. So, as you said, Blizzard is allowing transfer of the physical CD, but now won't allow the creation of an account using that trnasferred CD.
While this is clearly Blizzard's fault, it really highlights how screwed up our notions of "buy" and "ownership" are.
So, yeah, Blizzard owns the software, but you have a license to use it, and you have the right to transfer that license (which Blizzard calls "The Game"), along with your copy of the The Game (which they own) to someone else, but not the account you created with the key that came with the game. But you can transfer the key itself, under law AND their EULA, except that the tranferee can't use the key to make the account pursuant to their Terms of Service, basically rendering the license they bought to use Blizzard's game worthless.
Make all the excuses you want about "Oh, he should have known" but this is truly absurd. The situation is simple:
Even for someone who read the EULA, there is every expectation that the termination of the license for the original user, and a transfer of the CD, etc. to a new user would allow that user to play the game, and it doesn't.
This is wrong.
Yes, but I can rent a DVD from the library as well, and it is free. I specifically mentioned that libraries have VHS, DVDs and CDs and no one claims those rentals as "lost sales" even though they are free to the public.
Good thing there is no competition in the DVD business, because it is a monopoly. Who is the MPAA going to lose business to because it "losing" 4% of its sales? No one...there is no competitor.
And on the issue of "lost sales": do publishers include all the "lost sales" for every book someone pulls off the shelf at their local library? I don't understand why people buy their crappy arguments. Libraries are basically publicly funded repositories of copyrighted information that people can share. I bet if I proposed creating a "public library" (assuming none existed) and brought the proposal to the MPAA or RIAA, I would be laughed out of the room. They'd tell me to go fuck myself and pay them for my own copy. Yet, this is exactly what is happening in other arenas, and people seem to think it's OK.
All cliches aside, a lot of information (not all) really *is* supposed to be "free", or at least publically accessible without charge, just as is the case with a library. Actually, most societies think that knowledge in general should be free, and most governments support publically funded schools, as well as libraries.
I think perhaps what we need to really move forward in this arena is to have digital, internet libraries. Download the book you want to read, just as if you were taking it out of the library. Libraries have movies and music now, too. It's the same as your local library, it just is more convenient, and perhaps more complete.
The motivation to take someone to court is almost always at least two-fold:
1) Settle the outstanding issue that needs be resolved.
2) Establish a precendent.
(2) is much more valuable than (1) in the long run. Though the actual DVD format may become passe, the issues addressed here will not, at least not as quickly.
Honestly, I am always pleased when something like this goes to court, since it is a demonstration that people are willing to put their money towards causes that benefit the consumer.
Sure, you can point out that "Hey, people could Netflix everything and then they'd get to watch the DVD whenever they want without buying it!". Two important points need to be made about this argument:
1) Netflix basically already does this, it is simply a matter of convenience - with Netflix, I can see *anything I want* I just have to wait for them to ship it to me. Where do you want to draw the line on convenience?
2) So what? So people *can* misuse the system. People can misuse a hammer too. Or a spray can. Or a car. For some reason, the public-at-large has bought into the idea that their fundamental fair use rights (not having to put in a DVD every time they want to watch a movie) are forgone since the RIAA and MPAA have trouble enforcing copyright law inside someone's home.
I always hated having to bring game CDs along with me when I travelled because of the cd check. I hated having to bring CDs, DVDs, and PS2 games as well. The sooner we move to a system where I can have the convenience I want, the sooner I will have more respect for the folks that supply to material.
The are lots of counter-arguments to this, but let's face it: we all know digital distribution is coming because it is cheaper and more convenient. The industry needs to stop fighting the tide and allow people to access entertainment in a convenient way, that is in touch with modern technology.
The researchers programmed the altered virus package to attack a protein on the cancer cell surface called p-glycoprotein, which causes problems in cancer patients by shuttling cancer drugs away from the cell. In other words, p-glycoprotein causes resistance to cancer medication. Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
Except for the last sentence, it makes it seem as though this is only a way to pave the way for more conventional treatments. The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, given the context. I can understand how the proteins on the surface of a cell could qualify as "molecules", but then the structure of the sentence makes it seem like they're calling brain and blood cells molecules:
He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
I'm still waiting for a virus that attacks the actual cancer cells. I remember hearing something about it a while back, but then it seemed to die off. Anyone been following it?
Stagnant? Linux has gained the ability to market itself as a desktop OS in the past four years. Enough said.
Oh crap, you were trolling and I took the bait...
Interestingly, when this service comes out, someone will create a way to grab the songs "in transit" can save them. There will be lawsuits under the DMCA, and it could quite possibly lead to a challenging of the Betamax case, since the analogy is so close:
In Betamax, the court ruled that time-shifting of content supplied over a subscription service is fair use.
With Napster, the exact same model wold be in place. It will be very interesting to see how it goes.
It's clear that you completely missed my point. I was rebutting the statement that they can revoke your right to use their software after you pay whenever they want. They can't. It's as simple as that.
The first half of your post simply restates exactly what I asserted: they owe you exactly what they agreed to: the right to play their game. And if they restrict you to online play only on their servers, then they owe you those servers, since you can't get *what you paid for* otherwise.
If you breach the agreement, then the agreement is void. That is the way contracts work.
What I'm driving at here is that I think we basically agree...I wonder why you posted as if you disagree. Most all of your points coincide with what I thought I was saying.
Re-read what I wrote, and what you wrote - I think you'll see what I'm saying. =)
In order: That line is patently false. It is worded in such a way as to construe [decompile, modify, reverse engineer, disassemble] as forms of [reproduce]. Complete BS. They are using rhetorical parallelism to attempt to equate reverse engineering (a protected right of the *consumer*) with reproduction (a protected right of the *copyright holder*). And yes, it is a video game quote - probably one of the most philosophical video games ever, and rated as Best PC Game Ever by PC Gamer before Half-Life 2 rolled around. I still think it's better than HL2, but that is neither here nor there.
Wow, slashdot mods are quite a bunch (heh, I should know, I'm one of em). If ever an insightful post was written, here it is, and yet the mindless slashbot "Teh weaponz WeRe NOT in AyRaq!!!" posts getting modded +5 and this one languishes with no mods.
I know Slashdot is a left-leaning place (hey, that's OK), but this is the worst I've seen. Before politics, we're supposed to be nerds - you know, people who like to argue intelligently (and hack stuff!). Maybe I'm just expecting too much.
No, it is they who are priviledged: priviledged to be able to put a product to market that they may or may not be lucky enough to have me actually PAY for.
You've got everything backwards; they are at the consumer's mercy, not the other way around. You are correct that I do not "own" the software I "buy", but I own the right to use it, and you are incorrect when you say they can revoke it at any time. They cannot - when you buy the software, you have entered into an agreement. As soon as they take your money, they OWE you the right to play that game or use that piece of software. If it requires online access through one of their servers, they OWE you servers that are operational so you can use the product you paid them money for. And, in fact, I can do most anything I want with it, so long as it does not infringe on their rights granted by copyright law.
Some licenses do mention "no reverse engineering". There are two main points to mention in that regard:
1) Reverse engineering is a well recognized, legitimate activity within copyright law. Both copyright law itself, as well as the DMCA have exclusions for reverse engineering. Acting like it is a bad thing is absurd.
2) Very few companies prohibit reverse engineering in the EULA (Blizzard is one that I know of that does prohibit it). This is because they know that reverse engineering is (generally) protected, so long as it does not facilitate unauthorized distribution of the software (hence, the DMCA).
Lastly, to make an argument that someone should EXPECT for a EULA to contain wording that removes their rights, to which they should adhere, without ever SEEING the contract BEFORE the sale takes place is completely inane. This is a reflection of the *sad* state our copyright system has fallen into. You're a consumer, you should be fighting for your rights. As the adage goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The moment we (as a population) stop caring about our rights, is the moment they will be taken away.
Do not forget:
"Beware those who would deny you information,
for in their hearts they dream themselves your master."
"Mozilla" was an browser identifier string ten years ago. Netscape used it as a codename for some of their code, and it existed as a compatibility identifer long before Mozilla.org existed. Since IE was directly competing with Netscape, they wanted webpages to believe they were "mozilla comptaible", hence the browser identifier, which says as much (last I checked it says it is IE, but tags that with "mozilla compatible".)
When Netscape open-sourced their browser to save the server market from MS's clutches, the foundation that grabbed the source and moved forward with it needed a name, and Mozilla seemed appropriate as any. Rest assured, however, that Netscape and MS were using "mozilla" as a browser identifer string before Mozilla (the browser) existed.
If you want more informaion on the odd world of broswer identifier tags, go into Konqueror sometime and check the tag-spoofing options. Many will say "mozilla compatible", because that's really the standard.