It's not that it's OK for Google to induce Mr. Lee to violate his contract (if he is indeed going to violate it).
The issue is that Microsoft, of all companies, has absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about "unfair business practices" or "poaching" employees. I remember a story from the 90's where a Microsoft "jobs limo" pulled up in front of Borland HQ...
It's a combined case of "karma's a bitch," and "pot calling the kettle black."
What forced upgrade cycles? My company has a site licence for Office 2000.
"Site license" doesn't mean what it used to; in the past it was "thanks for the money, go ahead and install it on every computer your company owns or ever will own." Nowadays, it's "you have permission to install it on 1,000 PC's in your company. Each new PC will cost you an additional $2.50."
At some point in the future, incremental additions to your site license will not be available. Imagine if your company has standardized on an older OS for which MS no longer wants to sell licenses? In 1996, I was a consultant in the Atlanta, GA area. During one of many searches for a new gig, a colleague told me that a certain large company still used Win 3.1 because the IT department had standardized on it. Were they eventually forced into an upgrade? Youbetcha.
Good, because the licence expressly prohibits using any of the included software for anything other than development and testing purposes. If you install Office, any of the OSes, etc for normal, day to day use you are in violation of the licence.
I failed to elaborate in my original post that as part of forbidding desktop installs from MSDN, they explained that the reason was the license restrictions on MSDN; the company hadn't paid for a "desktop" license for Office XP, whether it was your CD from home, or the CD from MSDN.
What they care about are applications that install and work as close to flawlessly as possible (or at least allow them to accomplish their tasks with a minimum of problems).
I agree that most people don't care about the freedom aspect, but if you start pointing out the forced upgrade cycles, the inevitable breakage of some app or another with the next security patch or service pack, the fact that F/OSS puts as much guarantee on their software as Microsoft does for theirs (NONE), and if something bugs you about a F/OSS app, you can change it.
People want a minimum of hassle. So point out things like the Word 95/97/2000/XP incompatibilities. My previous employer sent out a company-wide e-mail stating that we were not to install Office XP on any systems, either from our own CD's (as this amounted to piracy) or from MS Developer Network CD's, and we especially weren't to spend company money to buy a copy. The reason was that they didn't want to upgrade the entire organization to Office XP, and yet once you saved a doc with XP, you had a decent chance of being able to open it only with XP.
GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations
San Francisco, CA - The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) has filed
an antitrust lawsuit against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in US
District Court for the State of California. They allege in their complaint that
"for over two decades, the CDC has unlawfully continued violating our patent on
G.R.I.D.S, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, also known as The Gay
Cancer, by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce citizens to
refrain from hot man on man anal intercourse and called for use of the
aforementioned name "AIDS" or "Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome".
The switch to AIDS -- which did not contain any mention of homosexuality in
any form -- enraged gay heritage groups, who demanded a congressional hearing
and vowed to defeat the CDC. In 2004, with the support of faggots and other
groups whom the CDC had rankled, the GNAA submitted the lawsuit after promising
a G.R.I.D.S. referendum.
"Homosexual black men invented G.R.I.D.S. We brought it over from Africa by
having anal intercourse with baboons and spread the love of G.R.I.D.S. in
bathhouses across America. Not to give the gay black man credit for his
sacrifice is in violation of our civil liberties. There is a very strong
sentiment among homosexual men of African-American descent, or as they prefer
to be called, Gay Niggers, that AIDS is an offensive acronym, and they
understand its connection with bigotry and oppression of faggots in America,"
said Enid Pakistan, executive director of the state chapter of the Gay Nigger
Association of America.
About G.R.I.D.S.
1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in
New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new
outbreak they called it GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency syndrome),
praising the gay community as carriers of this wonderful gift to all of
mankind. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and
people who received blood transfusions, proving that the syndrome knew no
boundaries, and that the hets wanted a piece of the action too.
About areems
Areems is the IRC handle of Armands Leimanis, a 15 year old Latvian boy with
a poor grasp of English, and a strong grasp of Hebrew traditions.
About Latvians
Latvians are grotesquely obese, deformed goblin-like mongrels very closely
resembling pigs. They practice Judaism and have a habit creeping into houses
and stealing the foreskins of babies.
About GNAA: GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first
organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one
common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy
all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member. GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing
GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of
America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join
today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations
San Francisco, CA - The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) has filed
an antitrust lawsuit against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in US
District Court for the State of California. They allege in their complaint that
"for over two decades, the CDC has unlawfully continued violating our patent on
G.R.I.D.S, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, also known as The Gay
Cancer, by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce citizens to
refrain from hot man on man anal intercourse and called for use of the
aforementioned name "AIDS" or "Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome".
The switch to AIDS -- which did not contain any mention of homosexuality in
any form -- enraged gay heritage groups, who demanded a congressional hearing
and vowed to defeat the CDC. In 2004, with the support of faggots and other
groups whom the CDC had rankled, the GNAA submitted the lawsuit after promising
a G.R.I.D.S. referendum.
"Homosexual black men invented G.R.I.D.S. We brought it over from Africa by
having anal intercourse with baboons and spread the love of G.R.I.D.S. in
bathhouses across America. Not to give the gay black man credit for his
sacrifice is in violation of our civil liberties. There is a very strong
sentiment among homosexual men of African-American descent, or as they prefer
to be called, Gay Niggers, that AIDS is an offensive acronym, and they
understand its connection with bigotry and oppression of faggots in America,"
said Enid Pakistan, executive director of the state chapter of the Gay Nigger
Association of America.
About G.R.I.D.S.
1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in
New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new
outbreak they called it GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency syndrome),
praising the gay community as carriers of this wonderful gift to all of
mankind. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and
people who received blood transfusions, proving that the syndrome knew no
boundaries, and that the hets wanted a piece of the action too.
About areems
Areems is the IRC handle of Armands Leimanis, a 15 year old Latvian boy with
a poor grasp of English, and a strong grasp of Hebrew traditions.
About Latvians
Latvians are grotesquely obese, deformed goblin-like mongrels very closely
resembling pigs. They practice Judaism and have a habit creeping into houses
and stealing the foreskins of babies.
About GNAA: GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first
organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one
common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy
all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member. GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing
GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of
America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join
today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
But the DMCA says it doesn't matter if it's crappy and inconvenient DRM; circumvention is circumvention. He broke the law, even if he did have rights to the content that was being protected.
Of course, I think the law is stupid, and getting people thrown in jail (or at least fined) for what is apparently a perfectly reasonable behaviour, is the only way to make people realize that the law needs to be changed.
So if Darl says that the 2002 memo only cleared linux of "literal" copying and didn't find deliberate obfuscation, how does he justify the "entire sections of code verbatim" remarks he made to the press?
I smell a shareholder lawsuit, an SEC investigation, and hopefully, a Sarbanes-Oxley smackdown of such grand proportions as to make Bernie Ebbers look like a slap on the wrist.
[dammit, why is the submit button so close to the preview button?]
Visceral reaction, sorry. I get seriously bent at people deciding what's best for my children. I'm smart enough to make those decisions in consultation with my wife, and I don't need nanny-state busy-bodies deciding what's best for me or my children. It's call personal responsibility and I highly advocate it.
Or maybe you advocate homeschooling, but didn't experience it yourself?
Yes. I am a product of publik edyookayshun, particularly the "alpha male vs. geek who just wants to get to computer class without any broken bones" facet of government schools. The very idea of a teacher telling children to stop answering questions because it makes "less gifted" kids feel bad, or getting beat up for acing a chemistry test when Johnny Football Hero flunks it, are some of the main drivers behind our decision to homeschool.
don't homeschool (no parent can possibly become an expert on a multitude of topics, not to mention the social isolation of homeschooling)
The whole reason my wife and I chose to homeschool validates the rest of your list. In California, the government schools suck badly.
Foreign language is not required, especially if English is not your first language. That's right, just condemn the kids to spend their lives mowing lawns and cleaning hotel rooms.
Technology is seen as the end-all-be-all. Laptops and internet access will somehow make Johnny be able to read. He'll be able to read, all right, in fact, his R3AD1NG W1LL R0X0R.
The schools are strict ("zero tolerance" for things like bringing a paring knife to cut an apple, or playing cops and robbers with finger-pointing like guns on the playground), but completely unfair when it comes to things like enforcing "no bullying" rules. Remember, snitches are bitches who deserve to get stitches.
Basics? What are those? We're busy building this child's esteem, thankyouverymuch. If we insist that Johnny learns to read, his esteem will be damaged and OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Most teachers don't give a damn, because the union protects them. The few that do care are cut off at the knees by administrators that don't care. My sister was one of those. "Miss *** said she saw you making gang signs in class. Did you make gang signs?" "No." "OK, go back to class." [under breath] "I'm gonna get you, Miss ***."
As for social isolation, have you ever spoken with any homeschoolers? There are numerous homeschool groups that meet regularly for activities, and of course don't forget just walking down the street to a friend's house.
Finally, almost any parent is capable of mastering enough information to provide their child with an education that is at least as good as the government schools provide. We're not talking about being a college professor, here, either, just teaching them to read, math concepts, history, and so on. Many companies provide curriculum and guides for the parents, so that, despite Mom and Dad's occasional thin spots, the kids still get an education.
You, sir, need to stop telling other perfectly competent people how to raise their children. I'll put my kids back in the government schools when they stop letting Johnny Football Hero get away with murder, and when they stop telling my kids to not answer any questions in class because they're making the stupid kids feel bad.
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
Furthermore, as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill.
Mr. Han Solo (Corellia) (Reb):
Listen, Mr. Reed, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side.
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
Would the Sargeant-at-Arms please arrest the hon. Mr. Solo for inciting violence against me and my religion? Please note that his subtle reference to a weapon (his "blaster") and "hokey religion" are intended to intimidate me into not practising my religious beliefs, on threat of violence.
The problem with laws like this is that they trade freedom for security, or more properly, the illusion of security. There's some quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the wisdom of trading freedom for security, I'm sure if I google, I can find it somewhere...
Unf***ing believable. Think about it for just a moment, how small 4 oz is. Can you wash down a school lunch with two mouthfuls of juice? My school lunch came with a half-pint (8 fl oz) of milk, and even then I'd usually buy a second milk to make sure all the slop went down easy.
And the parent post has it right, what the hell is wrong with 12 more oz of juice? Not soda or kool-aid, JUICE. 150 calories? This mom sounds like she's pushing her daughter into "only thin girls get the boys."
It's times like this I regret being a libertarian, because Mrs. Mary Carol Eddleman should have never been allowed to breed.
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the obvious solution: set up a webserver and post the link to slashdot. References to Natalie Portman, hot grits, and torrents of a leaked telecine rip of Episode III should help.
I use J-Pilot on SuSE 9.2 with my Handspring. The program has me press its sync button, then it says to press sync on my handheld. I've found that it very consistently times out on the first try, I hit "ok" on the Handspring, then tell J-Pilot to sync again, press the Handspring sync button, and everything works. I tried your suggestion (Handspring sync button first) but same results. It's a quirk that I tolerate to avoid dual-booting back to windows.
The other bit about/dev/ttyUSB1 is also extremely helpful; I found that in the FAQs and through google.
I suppose the moral of this post is that yes, it can be done. You might have a few bumps along the way, but for me personally it has been worth it.
If I remember the anti-trust lawsuit against MS, it dealt with OEM agreements that precluded them from bundling anything but MS apps on pre-installed machines. It wasn't an outright prohibition, more of "if you pre-install WordPerfect, you can't buy your Office licenses at a steep discount." So when you ordered a PC from Dell or others, your choice was "Windows pre-installed" or "Windows and Office pre-installed." There was not, at the time, any option for "No OS installed, I'll be running Linux," or "Windows and WordPerfect Office Suite pre-installed."
The proper comparison to a linux distro would be a boxed set you could buy from MS, perhaps spread over a couple of DVD's, that would install Windows, Internet Exploder, MS Orifice, MS Outhouse, and Visual Studio.NET. And MS doesn't offer that.
I just have to ask... if stem-cell research is SOOOOOO promising, why hasn't a company already picked it up and done research, instead of wailing for Sugar Daddy Federal Government to pay for it?
Without getting into the ethical questions and some peoples' objections to the source of the cells, really, if stem cells will cure cancer and parkinson's and alzheimer's, why isn't Amgen and their ilk forging ahead with the research?
Count me another overtaxed libertarian-leaning voter. I voted against the initiative solely on the basis of "who's going to pay the debt?" California's fiscal problems will not end until the state quits spending money like a venture capitalist circa 1999.
Yes, because excluding gays and atheists from their organization is both honorable and good, right?
I think you should ask the Catholic Church, particularly Cardinals Bernard Law and Roger Mahoney, about the wisdom of putting homosexuals in charge of young boys.
Think about this: scouts go camping. Would you send your daughter on a campout, miles away from civilization, with a heterosexual man? So why should someone send their son into the same situation with a homosexual? The BSA' policy makes sense. They're just too polite to draw the parallel to the homosexual pedophile priest scandal.
But don't you think that, from an ethical standpoint, it should be up to the owners of the film to decide who gets to make the edits?
No, due to right-of-first-sale. I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with it, including a horrifically clumsy edit that makes Spielberg look like a complete hack. And after seeing what he did to E.T.'s re-release (swapping walkie-talkie's for guns) I'm not sure that it's really all that difficult to make him look like a hack anyway.
When I watch a "butchered" film in my own home, the director is not being harmed, despite any rantings to the contrary. His "artistic vision" can go to hell when compared to my preferences as the consumer who paid for his movie. If I want to edit it, I can. Legally, and morally. If I want to hire someone else to edit it, either personally with a fine-tooth comb, or a service like ClearPlay, I can. Again, legally and morally. If the director doesn't like it, he shouldn't sell the movie in the home video market at all. In the theatres, the film reels run end-to-end, just as the director wanted it; if his artistic vision is so important, release it only to the theatres.
But the principle is still there: If there is money to be made by distributing a cleaned-up version of a movie, that money belongs to the film's owners, not to ClearPlay. If Director X wants to release two versions, knowing that some families will buy both, his market should not be undercut by ClearPlay.
The directors apparently didn't think there's enough market there, so they didn't. Somebody else stepped in to fill the void. I am cynical enough that I think "artistic vision" is their smokescreen for "we didn't realize we were leaving any money on the table, and we want that money, too."
Your use of ClearPlay undercuts your ability to do that. The studio releases a movie with foul language and you buy it. That you watch it with ClearPlay is information that the studios never get.
Absolutely correct. The studios do not get any direct feedback, which is why some of my more "orthodox" friends refuse to buy ClearPlay - to them, it's still wrong, because when you buy the uneditted DVD, you're paying money to people who made these morally wrong movies, and supporting them in their immoral activities. I take a more pragmatic approach: I can take a movie that was unsuitable for my children, and with a little technology, make it viewable.
The only way the studios get feedback right now is indirectly: they can look at the number of ClearPlay players sold (they cost more than a regular player, so you don't buy one if you don't want the feature), and the number of subscribers to the ClearPlay service. People don't pay good money for nothing, so the studios at some point will notice, or have it rubbed in their faces like with this bill.
I have to say that I like you -- despite our differences on this subject.
It's mutual.
Want to buy a delta between the Windows XP Pro ISO and the Mandriva Linux ISO? It certainly wouldn't be an infringement since it's just a list of differences.
And now we get into all the nuances of copyright, like the "20% rule" or "how many notes in sequence constitute infringement?" and all that cal. The ClearPlay data files for something like 300 movies runs about 2.5 MB. That's off the top of my head, so don't be surprised if I'm off by a bit. I looked at one of the files once and was able to see clear separations at 128KB, which is probably the sector size of the flash memory they use to store the filters on the player, one filter per sector I'm guessing. So, 128KB of diffs for a movie that takes 5GB on a disc, what's that percentage? Whereas your XP vs. Mandriva ISO diff set would probably be as large as the ISO itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the court said your ISO-diff is just a weakly-encrypted copy of the XP ISO, with the Mandriva ISO serving as the decryption key.
ClearPlay was threatened with a lawsuit, the one that started with CleanFlicks.
No, they were actually sued. The Director's Guild of America amended the suit and included ClearPlay.
You're right, and I mis-spoke. They were threatened by the outcome of a lawsuit that started with a different party, but grew to include them. I think the DGA should have sued separately, as CleanFlicks was doing something, IMHO, vastly different than ClearPlay.
What galls me is that CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, and the handful of other companies engaged in this kind of editing are potentially harming the reputation of a director and presenting their own "vision" of how the movie should be viewed to thousands of people.
Artistic vision, shmartistic vision. 99% of the movie-viewing public can't taste the difference between shit and french fries. You also make it sound like people (in their home, not at a movie theatre) don't realize they're turning on a cut-list and modifying the presentation of a film. Well, maybe my kids don't realize it, but really, do you care what my kids think of the "artistic vision" of the doofus that directed Harry Potter?
If "artistic vision" is so important, why do I see movies on television all the time, prefaced with "this film has been modified to fit this screen, to run in the time alloted, and editted for content" ? Because the directors are whores, and they will sell their artistic vision to the top bidder. Television networks will pay them money, and need to, because they are presenting the film. ClearPlay is not presenting the film, they are saying, "take this data you already paid for (the DVD), here's some code to make it skip and mute parts that might offend you based on the preferences you set."
From a business perspective, suppose that Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures decide that a "family-friendly" version of Schindler's List would be a big seller. Maybe Spielberg and Universal envision a family buying two versions: an unedited one for the parents and a less scary one for them to share with the children. Why should the market for that be undermined by ClearPlay's cleaned-up version? Why should ClearPlay reap the rewards when they don't own the copyright to the movie?
Schindler's List is a poor choice. Spielberg has made some statements that lead me to believe he will never re-cut it. I attended Brigham Young University in the early 90's. The on-campus theatre would rent the "airline version" of a film, and then further bleep it. As I understood the story, they wanted to screen Schindler's List, but there wasn't a cut-down version. The proposal on the table at the time was to actually do an edit, to remove the nudity and whatever swearing there was, but Spielberg said his studio would make sure the Varsity Theatre never got another one of th
the ClearPlay is not "publishing" a "cut list", as you claimed.
OK, so let's instead call it an "encrypted delta for a known set of data." The data is not exactly clear, some binary format that I have yet to decipher, and it is a delta, or change-set, to be applied against the play list contained on the DVD. The deltas are matched to the DVD by disc catalog number, so the ClearPlay folks can pretty much count on "if the catalog number is 12345, these are the changes we apply." It's a cut-list, but it's not exactly in an easy-to-understand format. What did you want, XML? (Well, yes, I would have liked an OPEN format so I could make my own, see complaint #1 against the ClearPlay system.)
Back to your Snow White analogy now. If you want to make a computer program that opens the DVD (remember to pay your DVD-CCA license fee first!), and then plays snippets of it so that Snow White says (mentally insert choppiness into speech as the player skips around looking for the right bits), "oh, Dopey, Sneezy, spank me, ravish me, make me scream," and distribute that program, you'd probably be able to get away with it after an expensive court battle. If your program instead grabbed portions of the video image (Snow White bending over to pick something up, Dopey smiling that Dopey smile, etc.) and composited them, you'd be treading a very fine line to distribute that program. And of course if you took the resulting video and distributed that, Disney would sue you into the ground.
ClearPlay was threatened with a lawsuit, the one that started with CleanFlicks. Remember them? I pointed them out earlier as being on much shakier ground, since they were distributed modified media. ClearPlay is different, as we've already hashed over too many times. Their reponse to getting dragged into the CleanFlicks debacle appears to have been to help pass a law that explicitly legalizes what they (ClearPlay) do. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress the power to set copyright terms and durations, including our very precious (and ever-dwindling) right of fair-use.
I'm just asking for the same sort of control that people wanted when they hacked CSS so they could make a linux DVD player, or the Go Video folks set up their player to skip all the trailers, warnings and commercials. I bought the DVD, paid good money for it, and I will watch it however I damn well please. I want CONTROL. Not control over your DVD's, just mine. You watch what you want, and I'll watch what I want.
If you think I'm committing a crime against some director's "artistic vision," go ahead and look down on me, just like Bill G. looks down on us "open source hippies." But I will continue to use the tools I have available to control my own media experience to the largest extent possible.
What's your alternative? Will you put me in a straightjacket and clip my eyelids open to make me watch the movie exactly how the dircetor thought I should? Real horrorshow flicks at the sinny, eh, Alex?
There's like, this horse, and he's laying on the ground. I can't see his chest rising and falling at all, so I think he's dead. Let me get a whip and I'll join you in the beating.
The ClearPlay system leaves the viewer unable to discern whether a movie he/she just saw was confusing, lacked emotional impact, etc. because the director lacked talent or because the ClearPlay butchery "damaged" the movie.
Did you read my comment before you replied? That's my #2 complaint, that I can't tell what is missing. The system has a little bit of control, in that I can tell it by category what to skip and what to leave alone, and in some of those, there are degrees (i.e. comic violence, violence, graphic violence), but still, you are fundamentally right on this particular facet and I agree with you: I wish I could tell exactly what is being left out. I wish I could make a derivative work, for personal use, of their cutlists.
I object to some business distributing derivative works for profit without the permission of the directors or studios.
I swear I am going to apply for a sales or PR position at ClearPlay, I do enough defending and explaining. ClearPlay does not distribute others' copyrighted works. They distribute precise instructions in a machine-readable form for your DVD player to skip scenes or mute dialog that someone matched up to a list of criteria. That's ALL.
There was another "editted-movie" business, also based out of Utah, called CleanFlicks, that would make a "personal archival copy" for you, minus the naughty bits. Basically, you sent them your original DVD (proof you owned the movie), and they sent it back to you with a DVD-R of an "editted" copy, bascially with you accepting their entire cutlist, no changes. I don't know if they're still in business, but IMHO they were at least toes-on-the-line, if not already over it.
What you do in your own home is none of my business, really -- so if you feel like ruining a film, be my guest. Just keep that choice bit in mind.
As I pointed out in another reply, that's the crux of the issue: I bought the DVD, I own it, and I will watch it in the way I see fit. If that means plopping in "Gladiator," "The Matrix," "We Were Soldiers," or "Black Hawk Down" and using the chapter skip to watch only the fight scenes, then that is my right as the owner of the disc. Some movies will still be perfectly viewable when editted, and others won't.
I seem to remember that ClearPlay had a press release a while ago, maybe at the time they joined the lobbying effort to get this bill passed, that there were some movies which just weren't amenable to filtering. Schindler's List was one they mentioned specifically, and I would have to agree. Edit out the violence, the nudity (particularly the physical exams at the train tracks with the old men and women running wind sprints to see who would live and who would die), and you've lost the entire movie.
This is not a new trend -- the victorians had a nasty habit of painting clothes onto nude paintings, and it's taken thousands of man-hours to fix the mess they left behind, just as an example.
Didn't people at one time suspect that the Mona Lisa was originally a nude? Would you be offended if the person who owned that painting before it came to the Louvre had fashioned a "mask" to hang over the painting and obscure the naughty bits? They've altered how the art is presented, but the art itself remains completely intact. Same concept with my DVD's.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that Microsoft, of all companies, has absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about "unfair business practices" or "poaching" employees. I remember a story from the 90's where a Microsoft "jobs limo" pulled up in front of Borland HQ ...
It's a combined case of "karma's a bitch," and "pot calling the kettle black."
-paul
"Site license" doesn't mean what it used to; in the past it was "thanks for the money, go ahead and install it on every computer your company owns or ever will own." Nowadays, it's "you have permission to install it on 1,000 PC's in your company. Each new PC will cost you an additional $2.50."
At some point in the future, incremental additions to your site license will not be available. Imagine if your company has standardized on an older OS for which MS no longer wants to sell licenses? In 1996, I was a consultant in the Atlanta, GA area. During one of many searches for a new gig, a colleague told me that a certain large company still used Win 3.1 because the IT department had standardized on it. Were they eventually forced into an upgrade? Youbetcha.
I failed to elaborate in my original post that as part of forbidding desktop installs from MSDN, they explained that the reason was the license restrictions on MSDN; the company hadn't paid for a "desktop" license for Office XP, whether it was your CD from home, or the CD from MSDN.
-paul
I agree that most people don't care about the freedom aspect, but if you start pointing out the forced upgrade cycles, the inevitable breakage of some app or another with the next security patch or service pack, the fact that F/OSS puts as much guarantee on their software as Microsoft does for theirs (NONE), and if something bugs you about a F/OSS app, you can change it.
People want a minimum of hassle. So point out things like the Word 95/97/2000/XP incompatibilities. My previous employer sent out a company-wide e-mail stating that we were not to install Office XP on any systems, either from our own CD's (as this amounted to piracy) or from MS Developer Network CD's, and we especially weren't to spend company money to buy a copy. The reason was that they didn't want to upgrade the entire organization to Office XP, and yet once you saved a doc with XP, you had a decent chance of being able to open it only with XP.
-paul
I guess we're seeing here that the size of the audience doesn't really matter, if at all.
-paul
My guns are purely mechanical devices, no electricity required.
Next question?
-paul
GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations
San Francisco, CA - The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in US District Court for the State of California. They allege in their complaint that "for over two decades, the CDC has unlawfully continued violating our patent on G.R.I.D.S, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, also known as The Gay Cancer, by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce citizens to refrain from hot man on man anal intercourse and called for use of the aforementioned name "AIDS" or "Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome".
The switch to AIDS -- which did not contain any mention of homosexuality in any form -- enraged gay heritage groups, who demanded a congressional hearing and vowed to defeat the CDC. In 2004, with the support of faggots and other groups whom the CDC had rankled, the GNAA submitted the lawsuit after promising a G.R.I.D.S. referendum.
"Homosexual black men invented G.R.I.D.S. We brought it over from Africa by having anal intercourse with baboons and spread the love of G.R.I.D.S. in bathhouses across America. Not to give the gay black man credit for his sacrifice is in violation of our civil liberties. There is a very strong sentiment among homosexual men of African-American descent, or as they prefer to be called, Gay Niggers, that AIDS is an offensive acronym, and they understand its connection with bigotry and oppression of faggots in America," said Enid Pakistan, executive director of the state chapter of the Gay Nigger Association of America.
About G.R.I.D.S.
1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new outbreak they called it GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency syndrome), praising the gay community as carriers of this wonderful gift to all of mankind. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and people who received blood transfusions, proving that the syndrome knew no boundaries, and that the hets wanted a piece of the action too.
About areems
Areems is the IRC handle of Armands Leimanis, a 15 year old Latvian boy with a poor grasp of English, and a strong grasp of Hebrew traditions.
About Latvians
Latvians are grotesquely obese, deformed goblin-like mongrels very closely resembling pigs. They practice Judaism and have a habit creeping into houses and stealing the foreskins of babies.
About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
GNAA sues the CDC for patent violations
San Francisco, CA - The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in US District Court for the State of California. They allege in their complaint that "for over two decades, the CDC has unlawfully continued violating our patent on G.R.I.D.S, or Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome, also known as The Gay Cancer, by engaging in a relentless, worldwide campaign to coerce citizens to refrain from hot man on man anal intercourse and called for use of the aforementioned name "AIDS" or "Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome".
The switch to AIDS -- which did not contain any mention of homosexuality in any form -- enraged gay heritage groups, who demanded a congressional hearing and vowed to defeat the CDC. In 2004, with the support of faggots and other groups whom the CDC had rankled, the GNAA submitted the lawsuit after promising a G.R.I.D.S. referendum.
"Homosexual black men invented G.R.I.D.S. We brought it over from Africa by having anal intercourse with baboons and spread the love of G.R.I.D.S. in bathhouses across America. Not to give the gay black man credit for his sacrifice is in violation of our civil liberties. There is a very strong sentiment among homosexual men of African-American descent, or as they prefer to be called, Gay Niggers, that AIDS is an offensive acronym, and they understand its connection with bigotry and oppression of faggots in America," said Enid Pakistan, executive director of the state chapter of the Gay Nigger Association of America.
About G.R.I.D.S.
1981 saw the emergence of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis among gay men in New York and California. When the Centers for Disease Control reported the new outbreak they called it GRIDS (gay-related immune deficiency syndrome), praising the gay community as carriers of this wonderful gift to all of mankind. However, cases started to be seen in heterosexuals, drug addicts, and people who received blood transfusions, proving that the syndrome knew no boundaries, and that the hets wanted a piece of the action too.
About areems
Areems is the IRC handle of Armands Leimanis, a 15 year old Latvian boy with a poor grasp of English, and a strong grasp of Hebrew traditions.
About Latvians
Latvians are grotesquely obese, deformed goblin-like mongrels very closely resembling pigs. They practice Judaism and have a habit creeping into houses and stealing the foreskins of babies.
About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
Of course, I think the law is stupid, and getting people thrown in jail (or at least fined) for what is apparently a perfectly reasonable behaviour, is the only way to make people realize that the law needs to be changed.
-paul
I smell a shareholder lawsuit, an SEC investigation, and hopefully, a Sarbanes-Oxley smackdown of such grand proportions as to make Bernie Ebbers look like a slap on the wrist.
-paul
Visceral reaction, sorry. I get seriously bent at people deciding what's best for my children. I'm smart enough to make those decisions in consultation with my wife, and I don't need nanny-state busy-bodies deciding what's best for me or my children. It's call personal responsibility and I highly advocate it.
Yes. I am a product of publik edyookayshun, particularly the "alpha male vs. geek who just wants to get to computer class without any broken bones" facet of government schools. The very idea of a teacher telling children to stop answering questions because it makes "less gifted" kids feel bad, or getting beat up for acing a chemistry test when Johnny Football Hero flunks it, are some of the main drivers behind our decision to homeschool.
-paul
The whole reason my wife and I chose to homeschool validates the rest of your list. In California, the government schools suck badly.
As for social isolation, have you ever spoken with any homeschoolers? There are numerous homeschool groups that meet regularly for activities, and of course don't forget just walking down the street to a friend's house.
Finally, almost any parent is capable of mastering enough information to provide their child with an education that is at least as good as the government schools provide. We're not talking about being a college professor, here, either, just teaching them to read, math concepts, history, and so on. Many companies provide curriculum and guides for the parents, so that, despite Mom and Dad's occasional thin spots, the kids still get an education.
You, sir, need to stop telling other perfectly competent people how to raise their children. I'll put my kids back in the government schools when they stop letting Johnny Football Hero get away with murder, and when they stop telling my kids to not answer any questions in class because they're making the stupid kids feel bad.
-paul
Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
Would the Sargeant-at-Arms please arrest the hon. Mr. Solo for inciting violence against me and my religion? Please note that his subtle reference to a weapon (his "blaster") and "hokey religion" are intended to intimidate me into not practising my religious beliefs, on threat of violence.
The problem with laws like this is that they trade freedom for security, or more properly, the illusion of security. There's some quote from one of the Founding Fathers about the wisdom of trading freedom for security, I'm sure if I google, I can find it somewhere ...
-paul
And the parent post has it right, what the hell is wrong with 12 more oz of juice? Not soda or kool-aid, JUICE. 150 calories? This mom sounds like she's pushing her daughter into "only thin girls get the boys."
It's times like this I regret being a libertarian, because Mrs. Mary Carol Eddleman should have never been allowed to breed.
-paul
-paul
The other bit about /dev/ttyUSB1 is also extremely helpful; I found that in the FAQs and through google.
I suppose the moral of this post is that yes, it can be done. You might have a few bumps along the way, but for me personally it has been worth it.
-paul
The proper comparison to a linux distro would be a boxed set you could buy from MS, perhaps spread over a couple of DVD's, that would install Windows, Internet Exploder, MS Orifice, MS Outhouse, and Visual Studio .NET. And MS doesn't offer that.
-paul
Without getting into the ethical questions and some peoples' objections to the source of the cells, really, if stem cells will cure cancer and parkinson's and alzheimer's, why isn't Amgen and their ilk forging ahead with the research?
Count me another overtaxed libertarian-leaning voter. I voted against the initiative solely on the basis of "who's going to pay the debt?" California's fiscal problems will not end until the state quits spending money like a venture capitalist circa 1999.
-paul
Nothing works quite as well as a good, old-fashioned bundle of wires.
P.S. no connection to the AirPwn folks myself; I just think their particular demonstration project was eff-ing hilarious.
-paul
I think you should ask the Catholic Church, particularly Cardinals Bernard Law and Roger Mahoney, about the wisdom of putting homosexuals in charge of young boys.
Think about this: scouts go camping. Would you send your daughter on a campout, miles away from civilization, with a heterosexual man? So why should someone send their son into the same situation with a homosexual? The BSA' policy makes sense. They're just too polite to draw the parallel to the homosexual pedophile priest scandal.
-paul
No, due to right-of-first-sale. I paid for it, I can do whatever I want with it, including a horrifically clumsy edit that makes Spielberg look like a complete hack. And after seeing what he did to E.T.'s re-release (swapping walkie-talkie's for guns) I'm not sure that it's really all that difficult to make him look like a hack anyway.
When I watch a "butchered" film in my own home, the director is not being harmed, despite any rantings to the contrary. His "artistic vision" can go to hell when compared to my preferences as the consumer who paid for his movie. If I want to edit it, I can. Legally, and morally. If I want to hire someone else to edit it, either personally with a fine-tooth comb, or a service like ClearPlay, I can. Again, legally and morally. If the director doesn't like it, he shouldn't sell the movie in the home video market at all. In the theatres, the film reels run end-to-end, just as the director wanted it; if his artistic vision is so important, release it only to the theatres.
But the principle is still there: If there is money to be made by distributing a cleaned-up version of a movie, that money belongs to the film's owners, not to ClearPlay. If Director X wants to release two versions, knowing that some families will buy both, his market should not be undercut by ClearPlay.
The directors apparently didn't think there's enough market there, so they didn't. Somebody else stepped in to fill the void. I am cynical enough that I think "artistic vision" is their smokescreen for "we didn't realize we were leaving any money on the table, and we want that money, too."
Your use of ClearPlay undercuts your ability to do that. The studio releases a movie with foul language and you buy it. That you watch it with ClearPlay is information that the studios never get.
Absolutely correct. The studios do not get any direct feedback, which is why some of my more "orthodox" friends refuse to buy ClearPlay - to them, it's still wrong, because when you buy the uneditted DVD, you're paying money to people who made these morally wrong movies, and supporting them in their immoral activities. I take a more pragmatic approach: I can take a movie that was unsuitable for my children, and with a little technology, make it viewable.
The only way the studios get feedback right now is indirectly: they can look at the number of ClearPlay players sold (they cost more than a regular player, so you don't buy one if you don't want the feature), and the number of subscribers to the ClearPlay service. People don't pay good money for nothing, so the studios at some point will notice, or have it rubbed in their faces like with this bill.
-paul
It's mutual.
Want to buy a delta between the Windows XP Pro ISO and the Mandriva Linux ISO? It certainly wouldn't be an infringement since it's just a list of differences.
And now we get into all the nuances of copyright, like the "20% rule" or "how many notes in sequence constitute infringement?" and all that cal. The ClearPlay data files for something like 300 movies runs about 2.5 MB. That's off the top of my head, so don't be surprised if I'm off by a bit. I looked at one of the files once and was able to see clear separations at 128KB, which is probably the sector size of the flash memory they use to store the filters on the player, one filter per sector I'm guessing. So, 128KB of diffs for a movie that takes 5GB on a disc, what's that percentage? Whereas your XP vs. Mandriva ISO diff set would probably be as large as the ISO itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the court said your ISO-diff is just a weakly-encrypted copy of the XP ISO, with the Mandriva ISO serving as the decryption key.
No, they were actually sued. The Director's Guild of America amended the suit and included ClearPlay.
You're right, and I mis-spoke. They were threatened by the outcome of a lawsuit that started with a different party, but grew to include them. I think the DGA should have sued separately, as CleanFlicks was doing something, IMHO, vastly different than ClearPlay.
What galls me is that CleanFlicks, ClearPlay, and the handful of other companies engaged in this kind of editing are potentially harming the reputation of a director and presenting their own "vision" of how the movie should be viewed to thousands of people.
Artistic vision, shmartistic vision. 99% of the movie-viewing public can't taste the difference between shit and french fries. You also make it sound like people (in their home, not at a movie theatre) don't realize they're turning on a cut-list and modifying the presentation of a film. Well, maybe my kids don't realize it, but really, do you care what my kids think of the "artistic vision" of the doofus that directed Harry Potter?
If "artistic vision" is so important, why do I see movies on television all the time, prefaced with "this film has been modified to fit this screen, to run in the time alloted, and editted for content" ? Because the directors are whores, and they will sell their artistic vision to the top bidder. Television networks will pay them money, and need to, because they are presenting the film. ClearPlay is not presenting the film, they are saying, "take this data you already paid for (the DVD), here's some code to make it skip and mute parts that might offend you based on the preferences you set."
From a business perspective, suppose that Steven Spielberg and Universal Pictures decide that a "family-friendly" version of Schindler's List would be a big seller. Maybe Spielberg and Universal envision a family buying two versions: an unedited one for the parents and a less scary one for them to share with the children. Why should the market for that be undermined by ClearPlay's cleaned-up version? Why should ClearPlay reap the rewards when they don't own the copyright to the movie?
Schindler's List is a poor choice. Spielberg has made some statements that lead me to believe he will never re-cut it. I attended Brigham Young University in the early 90's. The on-campus theatre would rent the "airline version" of a film, and then further bleep it. As I understood the story, they wanted to screen Schindler's List, but there wasn't a cut-down version. The proposal on the table at the time was to actually do an edit, to remove the nudity and whatever swearing there was, but Spielberg said his studio would make sure the Varsity Theatre never got another one of th
OK, so let's instead call it an "encrypted delta for a known set of data." The data is not exactly clear, some binary format that I have yet to decipher, and it is a delta, or change-set, to be applied against the play list contained on the DVD. The deltas are matched to the DVD by disc catalog number, so the ClearPlay folks can pretty much count on "if the catalog number is 12345, these are the changes we apply." It's a cut-list, but it's not exactly in an easy-to-understand format. What did you want, XML? (Well, yes, I would have liked an OPEN format so I could make my own, see complaint #1 against the ClearPlay system.)
Back to your Snow White analogy now. If you want to make a computer program that opens the DVD (remember to pay your DVD-CCA license fee first!), and then plays snippets of it so that Snow White says (mentally insert choppiness into speech as the player skips around looking for the right bits), "oh, Dopey, Sneezy, spank me, ravish me, make me scream," and distribute that program, you'd probably be able to get away with it after an expensive court battle. If your program instead grabbed portions of the video image (Snow White bending over to pick something up, Dopey smiling that Dopey smile, etc.) and composited them, you'd be treading a very fine line to distribute that program. And of course if you took the resulting video and distributed that, Disney would sue you into the ground.
ClearPlay was threatened with a lawsuit, the one that started with CleanFlicks. Remember them? I pointed them out earlier as being on much shakier ground, since they were distributed modified media. ClearPlay is different, as we've already hashed over too many times. Their reponse to getting dragged into the CleanFlicks debacle appears to have been to help pass a law that explicitly legalizes what they (ClearPlay) do. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress the power to set copyright terms and durations, including our very precious (and ever-dwindling) right of fair-use.
I'm just asking for the same sort of control that people wanted when they hacked CSS so they could make a linux DVD player, or the Go Video folks set up their player to skip all the trailers, warnings and commercials. I bought the DVD, paid good money for it, and I will watch it however I damn well please. I want CONTROL. Not control over your DVD's, just mine. You watch what you want, and I'll watch what I want.
If you think I'm committing a crime against some director's "artistic vision," go ahead and look down on me, just like Bill G. looks down on us "open source hippies." But I will continue to use the tools I have available to control my own media experience to the largest extent possible.
What's your alternative? Will you put me in a straightjacket and clip my eyelids open to make me watch the movie exactly how the dircetor thought I should? Real horrorshow flicks at the sinny, eh, Alex?
-paul
The ClearPlay system leaves the viewer unable to discern whether a movie he/she just saw was confusing, lacked emotional impact, etc. because the director lacked talent or because the ClearPlay butchery "damaged" the movie.
Did you read my comment before you replied? That's my #2 complaint, that I can't tell what is missing. The system has a little bit of control, in that I can tell it by category what to skip and what to leave alone, and in some of those, there are degrees (i.e. comic violence, violence, graphic violence), but still, you are fundamentally right on this particular facet and I agree with you: I wish I could tell exactly what is being left out. I wish I could make a derivative work, for personal use, of their cutlists.
I object to some business distributing derivative works for profit without the permission of the directors or studios.
I swear I am going to apply for a sales or PR position at ClearPlay, I do enough defending and explaining. ClearPlay does not distribute others' copyrighted works. They distribute precise instructions in a machine-readable form for your DVD player to skip scenes or mute dialog that someone matched up to a list of criteria. That's ALL.
There was another "editted-movie" business, also based out of Utah, called CleanFlicks, that would make a "personal archival copy" for you, minus the naughty bits. Basically, you sent them your original DVD (proof you owned the movie), and they sent it back to you with a DVD-R of an "editted" copy, bascially with you accepting their entire cutlist, no changes. I don't know if they're still in business, but IMHO they were at least toes-on-the-line, if not already over it.
-paul
As I pointed out in another reply, that's the crux of the issue: I bought the DVD, I own it, and I will watch it in the way I see fit. If that means plopping in "Gladiator," "The Matrix," "We Were Soldiers," or "Black Hawk Down" and using the chapter skip to watch only the fight scenes, then that is my right as the owner of the disc. Some movies will still be perfectly viewable when editted, and others won't.
I seem to remember that ClearPlay had a press release a while ago, maybe at the time they joined the lobbying effort to get this bill passed, that there were some movies which just weren't amenable to filtering. Schindler's List was one they mentioned specifically, and I would have to agree. Edit out the violence, the nudity (particularly the physical exams at the train tracks with the old men and women running wind sprints to see who would live and who would die), and you've lost the entire movie.
This is not a new trend -- the victorians had a nasty habit of painting clothes onto nude paintings, and it's taken thousands of man-hours to fix the mess they left behind, just as an example.
Didn't people at one time suspect that the Mona Lisa was originally a nude? Would you be offended if the person who owned that painting before it came to the Louvre had fashioned a "mask" to hang over the painting and obscure the naughty bits? They've altered how the art is presented, but the art itself remains completely intact. Same concept with my DVD's.
-paul