You have failed to demonstrate an actual harm. What precisely is it that Vista does that you are mad about? "impose that DRM on me" sounds like you don't actually know what you can't do on Vista that you would want to do.
Why do you think it sounds like I don't know what Vista restricts me from doing? I just explained the problem with the DRM, but I can happily go into more detail for you if you wish:
Firstly, we'd better clarify what DRM technologies Vista introduces and the effect they have. There is Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) which prevents copying of audio that the OS detects as copyrighted. It also limits what devices the audio file can be played from, presumably to prevent high-quality copies being made. PUMA also prevents the audio file being played on a non-approved player. I.e. any audio software must be have a licence from Microsoft which can be revoked. I don't think this is fully implemented yet, but it's billed as one of the new features in Vista so its presumably going to be installed shortly (whether you want it or not).
Next there are the Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management or PVP-OPM and Protected Video Path - User Accessible Bus or PVP-UAB. These two technologies are the video equivalents to the Protected Audio technology. Again, they prevent copying of files that Windows considers copyrighted and prevents their playback on non-approved hardware devices and software. This is already in there and active.
Vista is also the first MS OS to properly implement TPM - chip-based encryption on the motherboard which could have some very negative effects down the line but which I'll save for another post to keep this one to the point.
So what is the demonstrable harm of these technologies in Vista? Well to start with the least subtle problem, it blocks the use of a lot of existing hardware. Many of us have output devices - monitors, projectors - that would be perfectly capable of playing HD formats if Vista didn't refuse to co-poerate with these "uncertified" devices. Some people might not care about Vista forcing you to buy new hardware that the manufacturer has paid the appropriate technology licences for, but for the rest of, we have other demands on our money.
I know someone is going to try and explain to me that Vista doesn't prevent me playing HD content on non-approved hardware so I'll pre-empt that, I hope. It will let you play your own HD content or anything where the producer allows it. That isn't any of the HD movies that are released which is pretty much all the HD content out there. In short - yes, you can play HD content on non-approved devices so long as its nothing that you'd ever care about.;)
HOWEVER, that's not the really big concern. There are more subtle problems with DRM. The technologies above mean two things that I care about and which most other people here care about. The first concerns the ability to write software for Windows. Vista is so designed that only approved software can access certain content. It will be a poorer software world if only commercial projects paying their tithe to Microsoft can make full use of the operating system and its content.
The second is what this means for other operating systems. DRM is an inherently closed system (unless someone wants to come up with a significantly different take on it than both Apple and Microsoft have so far). Therefore, by encouraging content companies to sell only in DRM format (and DRM is pointless if you don't), they prevent other OS's or devices from any legal means to purchase the same content.
The third is a concern about the future. If I'm expected to spend money on building a collection of audio and video, then I need to know that what I've bought is mine. I need to know that when I move the files to my next computer, or when I want to take them with me on my music player, or when the company that sold them to me isn't there anymore, that I ca
Seriously, Vista does kinda suck, but when you go around talking about how it sucks for reasons that aren't even true you kinda just sound like a dumbass fanboy.
I sound like a "dumbass fanboy" because I expressed a dislike of DRM? In an entire thread filled with loathing for Vista, the person who was asking about behind the scenes improvements in it is the one you jump on for being a "dumbass fanboy"?
I dislike DRM because it interferes with my own use of something that I have bought. By implementing the content protection that Vista now has, Microsoft have enabled companies to impose that DRM on me where before they were forced to deal with me fairly and sell me an unemcumbered product. So yes, I am perfectly entitled to dislike the fact that Vista has it. Unless your definition of "dumbass fanboy" is someone who can demonstrate an actual harm to them, then maybe you'd like to reconsider your words?
much longer development cycles between os releases, like 6,8,10 years
I'm not disagreeing with you as I've not thought about it enough to say whether my own idea is good or bad, but I think rather than longer development cycles, they might actually need shorter ones. The Linux world seems to make excellent progress with numerous small increments. This of course necessitates a quite modular approach to developing the OS (with the most dramatic example being the separation of OS from Window Manager), but this actually leads to a much greater stability as you aren't suddenly shifting from one system to something very new and different, with all the headaches of testing, driver release, app compatability etc., etc. that this causes.
If a new release of Linux came out ever five years, I think we'd see massive problems with each new release of that, as well.
Of course the release schedule is driven by marketing, rather than developers so it might seem academic, but I have a suggestion to Microsoft on the million to one chance that Ballmer is reading through these articles in a dark fit of depression. A better solution would be to take an incremental approach to Windows releases and to make money through a subscription process. We know that customers resent being forced to go through an expensive upgrade cycle. Wouldn't the pill be easier to swallow if so long as they paid their very modest subscription to Microsoft, the updates just kept rolling down. One day it doesn't support a journaling files system, the next day it does - much like Ubuntu updates? Microsoft want to be in a service industry, providing media packages and other options with a steady stream of income, not a risky forecasting of sales for each new OS or version of Office. Wouldn't a subscription model suit that better, enabling lots of services to be rolled into one? And at a stroke you've cut down on vast amounts of piracy of the Windows OS. It's surely better to have a million users paying $24 a year than it is 500,000 maybe paying $80 once every five years. New PCs would as usual just come with a modest 1 year subscription free!
I know that I'd be happy with this model and a lot less resentful of seeing the big cost of the OS added to the price of the PC as one big extra cost. There are so many things that could be rolled into a subscription model in other areas of Microsoft's business that its almost silly.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like a good idea for both Microsoft and its customers. They're no longer competing with other proprietary OS's (bar the Macs). They're competing with free. And you can't do that by demanding $100 from people. You can do it by asking for a couple of dollars a month and people feeling that they're getting something good in return. If anyone knows the chair launching one, point him in my direction would you?
Not to be rude, but what the fuck does that matter if the users don't like Vista?
Well firstly I'm just curious as for the last five years I've developed exclusively on Linux platforms. Secondly, Vista will inevitably improve as bugs are ironed out and driver and application support improves. (It may never be as good as XP though due to the unacceptable DRM), so I want to know if we will ultimately be left with a better system than XP - is this a necessary step back to go forward further? Presumably if Vista does offer better functionality under the bonnet then it could be progress has been made after all. I feel very sorry for the developers who worked on Vista at the moment. It's not as if I'm suddenly going to install Vista (DRM!) but I actually have some idea of what a major effort it takes to produce a working OS and its received nothing but abuse since [before] it was released.
That's the truth. Due to being sick of sitting at my desk all day, I've now pulled out my old laptop so I can read/. on the sofa. I'd forgotten the specs on this thing until I saw your comment so for comparison, I just had a look at what I'm using. It's a 700MHz Celeron with, I'm not joking, 64MB of RAM. (A Dell Inspiron 2500 if you must know). It's running Xubuntu and browsing with Firefox 2, multiple tabs, and though it is slow to start some applications, it's useable enough. It's even letting me read a 45MB PDF file pretty smoothly at the same time. It makes you wonder what's actually being done with all the processor cycles and memory that we have these days.
I've heard that from the application developers side, Vista has some useful and expanded functionality over its predecessors. Has anyone developed for Vista yet and can comment?
Again, the same. I have used both DEs a lot and I find KDE more capable technically, but Gnome is easier on the eye. I like the top bar and separate window bar at the bottom. I also like the distinct lack of clutter. However, the new KDE looks better in terms of performance and with the new QT libraries, it's apparently easier to create apps that work on Linux and Windows.
If anyone created a KDE "theme" that made it look and work like Gnome, I'd be extremely happy with it. Probably the KDE camp would find that distasteful though.
I said if you were sued. Otherwise it is just pointless talking about the fair use defense isn't it?
And I've been saying all along, and very clearly and explicitly, is that I don't think it plausible that I will be sued for fair usage of a watermarked product. If you're not disagreeing with me on that point, then why have you been trying to argue with me for the last four or five posts? Have I been trolled?
Okay, let's just wind this up. I don't think anyone is still reading this thread but you and I.
That's pretty awful. If I'd known that, I'd probably have not bought one on principle. Though admittedly, I just blanked the installed system and put in a customised one that allows SSH and NFS.
You claimed I said you were going to get sued for X, Y and Z and then went on about how wrong I was.
You said I would be unable to defend myself against claims of copyright infringement. I listed the things that I thought constituted fair use and said that I didn't think any of them would result in a law suit. I'm asking you for the third time what in there was incorrect and why. If you're going to say that watermarking will result in people engaged in fair use being sued (and my point all along is that it will not), then you're going to have to say how, rather than just call me an idiot and tell me to "take chill pills."
Every thing you said I said which I didn't and then your indignant reply to yourself.
I think you may have hit reply to the wrong post? You said:
haw haw haw.. It costs money to defend fair use. It is always cheaper to just go silently into the night.
And I questioned what exactly you expected to be sued for? The chief aim of fair use for me is to use my purchased file in an unrestricted way - putting it on new machines, backing it up, having it in an open format that I'm not dependent on a company to maintain. Even lending the file to a friend. I don't see myself ever being prosecuted for that whilst your "haw haw haw" and your "it takes money to defend" seem to indicate that I would require a hefty legal defense fund. As to other instances of fair use such as use in parody or works that reference, I'm not an expert on where it begins and ends and I think it is decided on a case by case basis, but watermarking your files doesn't alter the current circumstances. If you produce some work that uses part of a copyrighted piece then it's normally attributable to you anyway.
That point was followed by your comment:
You're an idiot. Go take a chill pill.
I didn't realise that I was angry - thanks for pointing that out over the Internet.:) Anyway, my posts are containing noticably more content and less name calling than yours are, so if you want to actually dispute what I've said then... dispute what I've said. Tell me what I said that was wrong and what fair use you expect a watermark to prevent? I'm very anti-DRM because it reduces the value of the product and alters the marketplace in a negative way; I've found no good reason to be anti-watermarking.
You can, of course, choose to give artists a special reward personally -- a 'tip,' if you will -- but it would be terrible public policy to have anything like that implemented in the law.
Wow! Harsh! It would be a terrible idea to have anything implemented into law that helped someone profit from their work? That is what most of your post is saying. That if I slave away for a couple of years over a novel, society has the right to rip it away from me because that benefits society? And that, I quote: "any incentive provided should be minimal." Again, wow! No artist should be able to negotiate with their customers an agreed value for their work?
Because that's what copyright law does - allows negotiation. It allows someone who produces a work to set a price on that work. People can then either accept that price or leave it. The producer of the work in turn sells according to the value society is willing to place on their work. Thus society rewards people in accordance with perceived value - a streamlined and efficient system.
You seem to want to remove the ability of an artist to negotiate a price for their talents as if anyone has some sort of obligation to produce work for society at a price dicated to them. They don't.
What movies do you envision being made, songs recorded or books being written in this world where each of those is instantly taken from those who produced it and distributed to any who want it without any reward to the artist?
I sincerely hoping you're not going to suggest state funding as an alternative. As to people donating tips to authors or film directors... why enforce a model of business on people? Let an artist choose how to trade with people. Copyright law doesn't prevent an artist donating their work to the public domain for free if they choose, but removal of that law would prevent people having the freedom to choose other models of business. You say that the sole purpose of copyright law is to benefit society, but do you really consider the benefit of the majority to be the criteria for determining what is right? I am sure that you don't.
How long something has existed for (and a few centuries is plenty long enough in terms of law), is no basis for deciding if it is beneficial or not, it only provides further evidence on which to assess the matter. If someone produces music or a film that I enjoy, I want that person to be rewarded. Out of recognition that my tastes aren't universal, I'm even magnanimous enough to want artists to be rewarded for things other people like which I don't. Unless an artist is to hire their own thugs to go around taking back unpaid for copies, or unless people universally pay voluntarily what the artist wants to charge, then some sort of law seems necessary, does it not?
I really know very little about the current candidates, but it seems to me that there is presently a feeling of resentment and betrayal as regards the current Republican administration whilst at the same time many supporters see their party affiliation as an important part of themselves. Left unchecked, these combine to spell one thing - reduced voter turnout for the Republican party.
It seems to me that if I were behind the Republican party, my optimum strategy would be to set up a candidate who was both distanced from the current administration and yet staunchly Republican. A message of returning to the original values of Republicanism would provide this extremely well - both cancelling out the ill-feeling of the disillusioned and motivating the party faithful.
"Anything you didn't like wasn't real Republicanism. Anything you did like was real Republicanism and it's coming back!"
I can't at present think of any better electoral strategy for a party, or factions behind and within that party, to put forth. Renewal and Golden Days in one convenient package. Don't you think?
Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended.
haw haw haw.. It costs money to defend fair use. It is always cheaper to just go silently into the night.
So what are you saying here? That if I make a backup of the media that I've bought, that Michael Bey is going to burst through my door with a lawyer under each arm? That I'll get into trouble for moving videos to a new machine or listening to music on a recently purchased player or lending a file to a friend that I trust?
Or perhaps you think the same will happen if I upload a two-minute clip of my favourite movie-moment onto YouTube (though I have no desire to and I don't know if that's covered by fair use or not). In any of these cases, your expectation that you will be prosecuted seems far-fetched to me.
I always find it amusing when people like yourself make this statement - no, you're by no means not the only one.
I'm incredibly curious as to what "people like yourself" means. Please go ahead and describe me.;):D
Because there seems to be a misconception here, I'll just clarify that the last "DRM'd" stuff that I bought was from the iTunes store back when PyMusique enabled me to buy the unencrypted formats. I also own a few DVD's from Optimum Releasing who seem to be in the thrall of Macrovision's copy-protection system, but they were mistakes and I returned most of them for a refund. I buy DVD's on impulse normally and having to wait while my system rips them just so I can watch them makes me resentful.
Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended. I object to DRM because it prevents me from using the product I've purchased in fair ways and even worse, it prevents me from ever really owning what I've bought - never knowing when it will be taken away from me by a company's failure or a change in technology. But watermarking does none of that. If it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the product, then I have no problem with it. I think I even approve as a means of keeping down piracy will encourage companies to sell me products in a way that I want - i.e. as downloads.
Doesn't concern me a bit. Religious drones need it ground into their foreheads in letters of indelible ink until even the most fearful, gullible, and just plain stupid among them get it:
Alternately, you could avoid diverting an unrelated story into yet another divisive war. It's not as if it is a rare event here for a discussion to go screaming off into an unproductive slanging match between opposed factions.
People can work together irrespective of their beliefs in areas that aren't affected by those beliefs. You'd think prospecting for geothermal energy would be one of those areas. Random abuse about prayer just serves to increase divisions and push more people to extremes. The polarisation of politics in the US into two unshakeable power-blocks is the most prominent example of how unproductive it is for two groups to see everything in terms of one side or the other, rather than co-operate where there is no reason not to.
Articles from Roland used to go straight to his blog, which was usually a slightly summarised version of the article. As people can see however, these days you get a link direct to the article and you only go to his blog if you click on his name... which is reasonable enough.
The tag ought to be dropped, but if not, it's meaning will inevitably become less serious and more of an ironic "Oh no!"
I think we've lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of people working in the public service sector are hard working neighbors of ours that go to work every day and do their part in an attempt to make society better.
People can be good people and still be ordered to do bad things. Some will resign or risk firing, more will complain and protest, but many will mainly reassure themselves that it's not their responsibility, obey orders and feel bad about the people affected. It takes a lot to stand up and refuse to obey orders for most of us. I was put in that position last year. I kicked up a massive storm with my manager, walked out for the afternoon, came back next day and did the task in a shoddy, semi-sabotaged way. I'm ashamed I didn't refuse point blank. It wasn't a big thing, not something most of the people concerned would care about, but it wasn't something I was comfortable doing and that's what matters here. I resigned some months later when I'd found a different job. I like to think of myself as an independent sort of person but I was still very uncomfortable telling my employers that I wouldn't do what they asked me to.
The people who work in government can be your good, conscientious, hard-working neighbours. But we need to keep the government itself on a choking leash because it is hard for the legs to control the dog sometimes.
I'd just add that both Konqueror and Epiphany seem to be slimmer and faster than Firefox at the moment, especially Epiphany which handles Slashdot noticeably faster. I use Firefox for any web development because of the excellent Web Developer and Firebug plugins, but I use Epiphany for general browsing. The only thing I miss is the level of fine-tuning I can apply to my cookie preferences - Firefox handles that better.
Confirmed. I bought a season box set after having watched a few episodes online. Had obviously heard of it from reading Slashdot, but hadn't seen it. Not necessarily saying that widespread piracy is a good thing or that my experience is universal... but that's definitely one sale down to people posting episodes online.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think it sounds like I don't know what Vista restricts me from doing? I just explained the problem with the DRM, but I can happily go into more detail for you if you wish:
;)
Firstly, we'd better clarify what DRM technologies Vista introduces and the effect they have. There is Protected User Mode Audio (PUMA) which prevents copying of audio that the OS detects as copyrighted. It also limits what devices the audio file can be played from, presumably to prevent high-quality copies being made. PUMA also prevents the audio file being played on a non-approved player. I.e. any audio software must be have a licence from Microsoft which can be revoked. I don't think this is fully implemented yet, but it's billed as one of the new features in Vista so its presumably going to be installed shortly (whether you want it or not).
Next there are the Protected Video Path - Output Protection Management or PVP-OPM and Protected Video Path - User Accessible Bus or PVP-UAB. These two technologies are the video equivalents to the Protected Audio technology. Again, they prevent copying of files that Windows considers copyrighted and prevents their playback on non-approved hardware devices and software. This is already in there and active.
Vista is also the first MS OS to properly implement TPM - chip-based encryption on the motherboard which could have some very negative effects down the line but which I'll save for another post to keep this one to the point.
So what is the demonstrable harm of these technologies in Vista? Well to start with the least subtle problem, it blocks the use of a lot of existing hardware. Many of us have output devices - monitors, projectors - that would be perfectly capable of playing HD formats if Vista didn't refuse to co-poerate with these "uncertified" devices. Some people might not care about Vista forcing you to buy new hardware that the manufacturer has paid the appropriate technology licences for, but for the rest of, we have other demands on our money.
I know someone is going to try and explain to me that Vista doesn't prevent me playing HD content on non-approved hardware so I'll pre-empt that, I hope. It will let you play your own HD content or anything where the producer allows it. That isn't any of the HD movies that are released which is pretty much all the HD content out there. In short - yes, you can play HD content on non-approved devices so long as its nothing that you'd ever care about.
HOWEVER, that's not the really big concern. There are more subtle problems with DRM. The technologies above mean two things that I care about and which most other people here care about. The first concerns the ability to write software for Windows. Vista is so designed that only approved software can access certain content. It will be a poorer software world if only commercial projects paying their tithe to Microsoft can make full use of the operating system and its content.
The second is what this means for other operating systems. DRM is an inherently closed system (unless someone wants to come up with a significantly different take on it than both Apple and Microsoft have so far). Therefore, by encouraging content companies to sell only in DRM format (and DRM is pointless if you don't), they prevent other OS's or devices from any legal means to purchase the same content.
The third is a concern about the future. If I'm expected to spend money on building a collection of audio and video, then I need to know that what I've bought is mine. I need to know that when I move the files to my next computer, or when I want to take them with me on my music player, or when the company that sold them to me isn't there anymore, that I ca
I sound like a "dumbass fanboy" because I expressed a dislike of DRM? In an entire thread filled with loathing for Vista, the person who was asking about behind the scenes improvements in it is the one you jump on for being a "dumbass fanboy"?
I dislike DRM because it interferes with my own use of something that I have bought. By implementing the content protection that Vista now has, Microsoft have enabled companies to impose that DRM on me where before they were forced to deal with me fairly and sell me an unemcumbered product. So yes, I am perfectly entitled to dislike the fact that Vista has it. Unless your definition of "dumbass fanboy" is someone who can demonstrate an actual harm to them, then maybe you'd like to reconsider your words?
I'm not disagreeing with you as I've not thought about it enough to say whether my own idea is good or bad, but I think rather than longer development cycles, they might actually need shorter ones. The Linux world seems to make excellent progress with numerous small increments. This of course necessitates a quite modular approach to developing the OS (with the most dramatic example being the separation of OS from Window Manager), but this actually leads to a much greater stability as you aren't suddenly shifting from one system to something very new and different, with all the headaches of testing, driver release, app compatability etc., etc. that this causes.
If a new release of Linux came out ever five years, I think we'd see massive problems with each new release of that, as well.
Of course the release schedule is driven by marketing, rather than developers so it might seem academic, but I have a suggestion to Microsoft on the million to one chance that Ballmer is reading through these articles in a dark fit of depression. A better solution would be to take an incremental approach to Windows releases and to make money through a subscription process. We know that customers resent being forced to go through an expensive upgrade cycle. Wouldn't the pill be easier to swallow if so long as they paid their very modest subscription to Microsoft, the updates just kept rolling down. One day it doesn't support a journaling files system, the next day it does - much like Ubuntu updates? Microsoft want to be in a service industry, providing media packages and other options with a steady stream of income, not a risky forecasting of sales for each new OS or version of Office. Wouldn't a subscription model suit that better, enabling lots of services to be rolled into one? And at a stroke you've cut down on vast amounts of piracy of the Windows OS. It's surely better to have a million users paying $24 a year than it is 500,000 maybe paying $80 once every five years. New PCs would as usual just come with a modest 1 year subscription free!
I know that I'd be happy with this model and a lot less resentful of seeing the big cost of the OS added to the price of the PC as one big extra cost. There are so many things that could be rolled into a subscription model in other areas of Microsoft's business that its almost silly.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like a good idea for both Microsoft and its customers. They're no longer competing with other proprietary OS's (bar the Macs). They're competing with free. And you can't do that by demanding $100 from people. You can do it by asking for a couple of dollars a month and people feeling that they're getting something good in return. If anyone knows the chair launching one, point him in my direction would you?
Well firstly I'm just curious as for the last five years I've developed exclusively on Linux platforms. Secondly, Vista will inevitably improve as bugs are ironed out and driver and application support improves. (It may never be as good as XP though due to the unacceptable DRM), so I want to know if we will ultimately be left with a better system than XP - is this a necessary step back to go forward further? Presumably if Vista does offer better functionality under the bonnet then it could be progress has been made after all. I feel very sorry for the developers who worked on Vista at the moment. It's not as if I'm suddenly going to install Vista (DRM!) but I actually have some idea of what a major effort it takes to produce a working OS and its received nothing but abuse since [before] it was released.
That's the truth. Due to being sick of sitting at my desk all day, I've now pulled out my old laptop so I can read
I've heard that from the application developers side, Vista has some useful and expanded functionality over its predecessors. Has anyone developed for Vista yet and can comment?
Yep - interested. Thanks for posting them.
-H.
Again, the same. I have used both DEs a lot and I find KDE more capable technically, but Gnome is easier on the eye. I like the top bar and separate window bar at the bottom. I also like the distinct lack of clutter. However, the new KDE looks better in terms of performance and with the new QT libraries, it's apparently easier to create apps that work on Linux and Windows.
If anyone created a KDE "theme" that made it look and work like Gnome, I'd be extremely happy with it. Probably the KDE camp would find that distasteful though.
Well yes, but you're assuming that just because MS want OOXML approved as a standard, it means they can't keep modifying it as needed.
And I've been saying all along, and very clearly and explicitly, is that I don't think it plausible that I will be sued for fair usage of a watermarked product. If you're not disagreeing with me on that point, then why have you been trying to argue with me for the last four or five posts? Have I been trolled?
Okay, let's just wind this up. I don't think anyone is still reading this thread but you and I.
Regards,
-H.
That's pretty awful. If I'd known that, I'd probably have not bought one on principle. Though admittedly, I just blanked the installed system and put in a customised one that allows SSH and NFS.
You said I would be unable to defend myself against claims of copyright infringement. I listed the things that I thought constituted fair use and said that I didn't think any of them would result in a law suit. I'm asking you for the third time what in there was incorrect and why. If you're going to say that watermarking will result in people engaged in fair use being sued (and my point all along is that it will not), then you're going to have to say how, rather than just call me an idiot and tell me to "take chill pills."
I think you may have hit reply to the wrong post? You said:
And I questioned what exactly you expected to be sued for? The chief aim of fair use for me is to use my purchased file in an unrestricted way - putting it on new machines, backing it up, having it in an open format that I'm not dependent on a company to maintain. Even lending the file to a friend. I don't see myself ever being prosecuted for that whilst your "haw haw haw" and your "it takes money to defend" seem to indicate that I would require a hefty legal defense fund. As to other instances of fair use such as use in parody or works that reference, I'm not an expert on where it begins and ends and I think it is decided on a case by case basis, but watermarking your files doesn't alter the current circumstances. If you produce some work that uses part of a copyrighted piece then it's normally attributable to you anyway.
That point was followed by your comment:
I didn't realise that I was angry - thanks for pointing that out over the Internet.
I don't agree with you. Where you say:
Wow! Harsh! It would be a terrible idea to have anything implemented into law that helped someone profit from their work? That is what most of your post is saying. That if I slave away for a couple of years over a novel, society has the right to rip it away from me because that benefits society? And that, I quote: "any incentive provided should be minimal." Again, wow! No artist should be able to negotiate with their customers an agreed value for their work?
Because that's what copyright law does - allows negotiation. It allows someone who produces a work to set a price on that work. People can then either accept that price or leave it. The producer of the work in turn sells according to the value society is willing to place on their work. Thus society rewards people in accordance with perceived value - a streamlined and efficient system.
You seem to want to remove the ability of an artist to negotiate a price for their talents as if anyone has some sort of obligation to produce work for society at a price dicated to them. They don't.
What movies do you envision being made, songs recorded or books being written in this world where each of those is instantly taken from those who produced it and distributed to any who want it without any reward to the artist?
I sincerely hoping you're not going to suggest state funding as an alternative. As to people donating tips to authors or film directors... why enforce a model of business on people? Let an artist choose how to trade with people. Copyright law doesn't prevent an artist donating their work to the public domain for free if they choose, but removal of that law would prevent people having the freedom to choose other models of business. You say that the sole purpose of copyright law is to benefit society, but do you really consider the benefit of the majority to be the criteria for determining what is right? I am sure that you don't.
How long something has existed for (and a few centuries is plenty long enough in terms of law), is no basis for deciding if it is beneficial or not, it only provides further evidence on which to assess the matter. If someone produces music or a film that I enjoy, I want that person to be rewarded. Out of recognition that my tastes aren't universal, I'm even magnanimous enough to want artists to be rewarded for things other people like which I don't. Unless an artist is to hire their own thugs to go around taking back unpaid for copies, or unless people universally pay voluntarily what the artist wants to charge, then some sort of law seems necessary, does it not?
I'm baffled. What in my post is incorrect and why?
I really know very little about the current candidates, but it seems to me that there is presently a feeling of resentment and betrayal as regards the current Republican administration whilst at the same time many supporters see their party affiliation as an important part of themselves. Left unchecked, these combine to spell one thing - reduced voter turnout for the Republican party.
It seems to me that if I were behind the Republican party, my optimum strategy would be to set up a candidate who was both distanced from the current administration and yet staunchly Republican. A message of returning to the original values of Republicanism would provide this extremely well - both cancelling out the ill-feeling of the disillusioned and motivating the party faithful.
"Anything you didn't like wasn't real Republicanism. Anything you did like was real Republicanism and it's coming back!"
I can't at present think of any better electoral strategy for a party, or factions behind and within that party, to put forth. Renewal and Golden Days in one convenient package. Don't you think?
So what are you saying here? That if I make a backup of the media that I've bought, that Michael Bey is going to burst through my door with a lawyer under each arm? That I'll get into trouble for moving videos to a new machine or listening to music on a recently purchased player or lending a file to a friend that I trust?
Or perhaps you think the same will happen if I upload a two-minute clip of my favourite movie-moment onto YouTube (though I have no desire to and I don't know if that's covered by fair use or not). In any of these cases, your expectation that you will be prosecuted seems far-fetched to me.
Well so what? If it's fair use it can be defended. I object to DRM because it prevents me from using the product I've purchased in fair ways and even worse, it prevents me from ever really owning what I've bought - never knowing when it will be taken away from me by a company's failure or a change in technology. But watermarking does none of that. If it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment of the product, then I have no problem with it. I think I even approve as a means of keeping down piracy will encourage companies to sell me products in a way that I want - i.e. as downloads.
Personally, I encourage watermarking.
Articles from Roland used to go straight to his blog, which was usually a slightly summarised version of the article. As people can see however, these days you get a link direct to the article and you only go to his blog if you click on his name... which is reasonable enough.
The tag ought to be dropped, but if not, it's meaning will inevitably become less serious and more of an ironic "Oh no!"
People can be good people and still be ordered to do bad things. Some will resign or risk firing, more will complain and protest, but many will mainly reassure themselves that it's not their responsibility, obey orders and feel bad about the people affected. It takes a lot to stand up and refuse to obey orders for most of us. I was put in that position last year. I kicked up a massive storm with my manager, walked out for the afternoon, came back next day and did the task in a shoddy, semi-sabotaged way. I'm ashamed I didn't refuse point blank. It wasn't a big thing, not something most of the people concerned would care about, but it wasn't something I was comfortable doing and that's what matters here. I resigned some months later when I'd found a different job. I like to think of myself as an independent sort of person but I was still very uncomfortable telling my employers that I wouldn't do what they asked me to.
The people who work in government can be your good, conscientious, hard-working neighbours. But we need to keep the government itself on a choking leash because it is hard for the legs to control the dog sometimes.
I'd just add that both Konqueror and Epiphany seem to be slimmer and faster than Firefox at the moment, especially Epiphany which handles Slashdot noticeably faster. I use Firefox for any web development because of the excellent Web Developer and Firebug plugins, but I use Epiphany for general browsing. The only thing I miss is the level of fine-tuning I can apply to my cookie preferences - Firefox handles that better.
Confirmed. I bought a season box set after having watched a few episodes online. Had obviously heard of it from reading Slashdot, but hadn't seen it. Not necessarily saying that widespread piracy is a good thing or that my experience is universal... but that's definitely one sale down to people posting episodes online.