"I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use. "
Then don't you think it is about time some enterprising young attorney take it up? This is what the courts were setup for. To address greivances that have not been addressed before. I say the Pro **AA side has had their cake for far too long and it is about time someone took it back. Having a section for "fair use" does no good if you can't use it. May as well strike it out (something the **AA would love anyway). Either there is fair use and you have free excersize of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
"Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law."
Imagine my surprise that I expect the courts to intrepret an old law.
HINT: That is their job!
They aren't making new law simply enforcing an existing one.
"It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras)."
No that never works, it is time for people to get off their duff and take Sony to court. Strangly enough for copyright violation! Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights. For added measure include a charge of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
But of course we know that none of that will happen. The media lobbies are too powerful. Let's face it, we have the best legislature money can buy.
"...and most people are perfectly happy to use it."
And most people are morons that get it preinstalled and know no better. That is because Microsoft is a monopoly. And just like the crack dealer on the corner, they know that once you get them hooked they hardly ever get free!
"I'm not sure why people say things like that. It's a hell of a lot easier to find new good music today than it was 5 years ago, and a thousand times easier than it was 5 years before that. Maybe I just live in some weird radio paradise area that doesn't only play Avril Lavigne."
Simple...
1.) It depends on your definition of "good". This is a subjective argument that the labels can't win on.
2.) The downward forcing of prices for CDs from the likes of WalMart is causing their decline in profits. The labels then blame it on piracy. You have seen the FUD..."Piracy has cost us XXX bazillion in sales!!!" when in reality it is the outlets refusing to sell CDs for what the labels expect they should get.
3.) Clear channel owns a HUGE percentage of the radio market. Whatever they don't own some other large corporation does. This means a homgonious selection of songs across the country. Local bands never make it onto local stations since there are no local stations any more. When was the last time you heard a local band even (maybe especially) if you live in a big city where the likelyhood is that local bands exist. Guarenteed they won't get air time even if they payed themselves if they aren't piped from clear channel. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they opposed Bush's war. They were pulled from all clear channel lineups and disappeared from the face of the planet.
"For the record, the article did make a good point. Large businesses that need support can't tinker with the source as freely as other users, as doing so makes tech support more costly. Hence, for this market, open source is less open. Sure, it's common sense - but for large, tech-support-needy corporations, open source becomes little different from shared source. And hence, Mr. Matusow's point."
yes, that is the point he was making but it is still a null & void one. If you have the "in-house" ability to modify source to the point of breaking support then you don't need support for that code. Modifying code on one program doesn't make support for other "standard" progams go away. It only makes support for your mods dry up. But then again, if you can't support your own modifications what business do you have modifying it instead of using that damned support contract you paid for...
"MS, stop attacking Linux and mind your own business. You have less and less credibility when you keep attacking Open Source in general with your FUD and your customers are catching on."
Actually, this round of FUD isn't aimed at "end-users". It is aimed at PHBs that are considering switching large operations. It makes absolutely no sense to purchase a support contract and then attempt to negate that contract by doing self-modifications. As I stated in my post above, why did you purchase the support if you aren't going to use it?
"Somewhere along the line, you have to make a tiny modification to support some odd piece of hardware, and suddenly your support contract is worth less than the paper it isn't printed on. What is he going to think of your Open Source when something essential breaks that you can't fix and Red Hat/won't/ fix?"
That is just absolutely silly. If you have a support contract then use the damned thing when you get that esoteric hardware and make Redhat do something with it. then your contract is still valid. Why did you purchase it if you aren't going to use it?!?!?!
"If that's not what you were going for.. apologies."
Nope. That rant is not what I was going for...;-)
Just pointing out history is being rewritten in our media. We went from "they have WMD" to "they have nuclear weapons" to "Now we are bringing them democracy" as each reason was shot down. Add to that the "fair and balanced" reporting of Fox News and you will see the comment's context.
"American soil is safer than ever. And whenever a terrorist travels to Iraq and gets swiss cheesed by one of our boys, it is even safer."
Too much Fox News for your 2 neurons, eh...
Let's try this in simpler terms. Our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is making us MORE at risk of attack not less.
Here is your assignment:
Assume another country, say China since they would have the resources, decided to invade the US on the grounds that we have WMD. Further say that they, not us, will be the ones to "rebuild" after the invasion sending our economy into the toilet (as if it wasn't already there). Would you fight with any means at your disposal including terrorist acts? Would you continue fighting even after they "won" the war?
That is exactly what is going on. The longer we stay there the more likely we are to have another 9/11. And while we are on the subject, why was it only AFTER 9/11 that the US decided to take terrorism seriously? You mean to tell me the other pre-9/11 attacks were unworthy of changing how we dealt with terrorism?
Ha! By what definition? You're not free to create anarchy, but I'd say you're a lot more free than most countries."
By the definition of our own Constitution. The Patriot Act does away with little things like due process and equal justice under law...
"- Is not democractic
Again, by what bizarro definition do you think this is true? We have elections which is more than some countries have, representative government, etc, etc. You might not like the pols that get elected, but that's tough. You don't always get who you want. Fortunately, the elections are regular enough that we have the chance to vote 'em out next time around if we don't like 'em."
Putting election fraud aside, only 12 % of the elegible voters actually voted. Contrast this with Germany who the US likes to try to kick around with a voter turnout of 79%. So you are telling me that 12% is representative? By what book?
"- Has a completly corrupt and criminal political system
Well, considering one of the parties has ex-KKK members (Robert Byrd), people that drive people have bridges and don't report it until much much later (Ted Kennedy), I'd have to say that there are corrupt and criminal Senators, that's for sure. Strangely, no one in that party seems to have a problem with racists in their part of the Senate."
Both parties have very bad apples. It is the lesser of 2 evils. Look at Strom Thurman or the current crop in the form of Trent Lott, Scooter Libby, et. al. Again, that is what you get when the voter turnout is so low.
"- Has more poverty than any other 1st world country
That's also complete crap. Again, check out France. Those rioters aren't pissed off because they have jobs, bub."
Hurricane Katrina.....Need I say more...
"- Has an increasingly horrible education system
That completely depends on where you are in States. There are a lot of places that have crappy school systems, but there are many many more that have good both public and private schools.
And the last time I checked, there sure were a helluva lot of students from other countries coming over here for school."
Rearrange your wording there and align it to the wealth of the community and you will see the correlation. Poorer communities don't have the resources that richer ones do. It goes to class.
"- Have their own world history which differs quite a bit from the history that the rest of the world knows.
"the rest of the world knows...."...Yeah, right.
Facts are facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
Histroy is written by the victors. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is a huge skew in our history especially when dealing with our justifications for military actions. That skew is seen not only in schools but in our news media. Just look at how many people who watch Fox News think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks when the reality is the majority of attackers were Saudi.
"- Indoctrinates it's people about the same as old Soviet Union did and about the same as todays North Korea and China.
Except, if that were true, you: (A) Wouldn't have been able to post that message and (B) probably would already be arrested just for stating it."
And the Patriot Act allows for just that. He still can be arrested for that post just like I can be for this one. Worst thing is they could keep us indefinately without access to attornies for as long as they like. Just ask anyone they rounded up after 9/11....Oh wait, you aren't allowed to ask them...
"I'd say we have been very effective fighting terrorism."
You would be very wrong. Let's list them out shall we...
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center attack of 1993 USS Cole attack Oaklahoma City Bombing US Embassy bombings from 1993-2000 6 in all IIRC All the hostage takings from 1970 on including the Iranian Hostages Pan Am flight 103 and other airline bombings
Post 9/11 World Trade Center attack 9/11 Pentagon attack 9/11 DC Anthrax attacks (never solved) DC Sniper attacks (solved) WV / OH Sniper attacks (never solved) Bomb material stopped at Canadian border (culprits still not found)
Now, let's look at what has been done...
Trillions spent on airport security and border patrol the latest test of that security still found that you can get through with knives, guns, drugs, and explosives.
The most terror ridden place on the planet (Isreal) still has attacks of great magnatude yet still claims to be the most secure. It is fooling yourself if you actually think you can win a "war on terrorism" in the way this administration has been doing it. If Isreal can't stop it with the resources of the US behind it what makes you think it can be stopped here using the same tactics?
"It doesn't matter that you dislike microsoft, the idea is a good one and microsoft is a powerful company that has the finicial resources to promote political change."
Riddled with loopholes a Mac truch can drive 4 abreast though. Microsoft is a company that depends on user specific and identifying data (activation anyone). They are simply trying to head off the more restrictive ones the states are coming up with.
"As always the weakest link in security is usually the interface between the chair and the keyboard."
This goes for *nix just as much as any other OS. Microsoft just makes it easier and more lethal. I help loads of people making the "switch" and their biggest beef until recently was that it didn't have autorun. What happened recently? You guessed it! Most distors instituted automount/autorun.
As to this topic, any program that is NOT specifically run by the user is by default not agreed to. Just ask the spyware folk who just recently lost a case (can't recall where but it was covered by/.)
The US Congress / Courts are so busy protecting the rights of corporations they have completely forgotten the rights of people. It is a sad commentary on the times we live in.
The major difference between MS and IBM is one has something other than code to sell. Although MS does have some periphial hardware they sell, it still servives solely on the programs it sells. Going GPL is orders of magnatude harder for them than it was for IBM.
"I personally believe the justice system is a subjective system, and you can never be 100% sure of ANYTHING."
Exactly....That is why our system is adversarial with both sides challenging everything under the sun including the sun. Anything NOT challenged in our system is an admission to it.
You are correct. A person accused of a crime has the right under US law to face their accuser and challenge them. What the Florida court has affirmed is this basic right even if the accuser is a black box. You are talking about someone losing their license to drive at best and their freedom at worst. This is why I have problems with the Patriot Act. It strips you of that right to face your accuser in the name of "National Security". In this day where rights are being eroded at a frightening pace it is refreshing to see the court finally putting some brakes on the slide.
In MS Office, yes I am implying that scripting is bad. Even Microsoft is implying that with the default being set to OFF now. As for using a spreadsheet with macros in it I can safaly say I have never used one with them. This goes for any of the Office crap. Why? Because I have it turned off and won't allow any to run.
Is all scripting bad? I never said it was. Scripting that you have no clue it is running is bad and that is what happens in Office scripting.
What good is software for a customer (Mass.) that doesn't default to the output they want? How long do you think MS Office will last with the users constantly having to select OpenDocument to be complient with their own laws? It is MS hopes that they won't bother and it is saved in the proprietary format MS coses as the default. What is wrong with allowing the user to set that default?
"Word also had support for WordPerfect documents for years and it didn't seem to keep Microsoft from eating their lunch."
And that is because like OpenDocument, support for != Default. I suspect that they will support it but prevent you from using it as the default. People are lazy when they make documents and as long as they can open them the rest be damned. So unless the default is mandated as OpenDocument expect it to die a silent death. B.
This is what got them into trouble in the first place. Is there really anyone other than script kiddies who write macroviruses that use this "feature"? Give me a break. Hell, in one of their Office updates the default is OFF for macros...
Why not just throw the damned thing away? I don't own a cell phone and never will. If you can't get me at home / work then it means I don't want to be gotten!
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not at all convinced that is how fair use works. I understand that there is protection that a company can not successfully sue you for copyright infringement if it falls under fair use. However I am unaware of any cases where a company has been sued for making it technically difficult to do activities that fall under fair use. "
Then don't you think it is about time some enterprising young attorney take it up? This is what the courts were setup for. To address greivances that have not been addressed before. I say the Pro **AA side has had their cake for far too long and it is about time someone took it back. Having a section for "fair use" does no good if you can't use it. May as well strike it out (something the **AA would love anyway). Either there is fair use and you have free excersize of those rights or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
"Certainly you can still take sony to court over this but if you do you are asking the courts to make new law: or at least reinterpret old law."
Imagine my surprise that I expect the courts to intrepret an old law.
HINT: That is their job!
They aren't making new law simply enforcing an existing one.
B.
"It's time to take SONY to the woodshed. Don't purchase anything with any SONY signature (this may require a little research, SONY makes ccd's for lots of digital cameras)."
No that never works, it is time for people to get off their duff and take Sony to court. Strangly enough for copyright violation! Title 17 allows for archival and educational study use (things commonly known as "fair use"). By instituting DRM in this fashion they have deprived us of those rights. For added measure include a charge of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
But of course we know that none of that will happen. The media lobbies are too powerful. Let's face it, we have the best legislature money can buy.
B.
Or an alternative...
If Microsoft is getting any percentage of the deal they have made a sale twice. Anything beats a dead license.
B.
"...and most people are perfectly happy to use it."
And most people are morons that get it preinstalled and know no better. That is because Microsoft is a monopoly. And just like the crack dealer on the corner, they know that once you get them hooked they hardly ever get free!
B.
"I'm not sure why people say things like that. It's a hell of a lot easier to find new good music today than it was 5 years ago, and a thousand times easier than it was 5 years before that. Maybe I just live in some weird radio paradise area that doesn't only play Avril Lavigne."
Simple...
1.) It depends on your definition of "good". This is a subjective argument that the labels can't win on.
2.) The downward forcing of prices for CDs from the likes of WalMart is causing their decline in profits. The labels then blame it on piracy. You have seen the FUD..."Piracy has cost us XXX bazillion in sales!!!" when in reality it is the outlets refusing to sell CDs for what the labels expect they should get.
3.) Clear channel owns a HUGE percentage of the radio market. Whatever they don't own some other large corporation does. This means a homgonious selection of songs across the country. Local bands never make it onto local stations since there are no local stations any more. When was the last time you heard a local band even (maybe especially) if you live in a big city where the likelyhood is that local bands exist. Guarenteed they won't get air time even if they payed themselves if they aren't piped from clear channel. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they opposed Bush's war. They were pulled from all clear channel lineups and disappeared from the face of the planet.
B.
"For the record, the article did make a good point. Large businesses that need support can't tinker with the source as freely as other users, as doing so makes tech support more costly. Hence, for this market, open source is less open. Sure, it's common sense - but for large, tech-support-needy corporations, open source becomes little different from shared source. And hence, Mr. Matusow's point."
yes, that is the point he was making but it is still a null & void one. If you have the "in-house" ability to modify source to the point of breaking support then you don't need support for that code. Modifying code on one program doesn't make support for other "standard" progams go away. It only makes support for your mods dry up. But then again, if you can't support your own modifications what business do you have modifying it instead of using that damned support contract you paid for...
B.
"MS, stop attacking Linux and mind your own business. You have less and less credibility when you keep attacking Open Source in general with your FUD and your customers are catching on."
Actually, this round of FUD isn't aimed at "end-users". It is aimed at PHBs that are considering switching large operations. It makes absolutely no sense to purchase a support contract and then attempt to negate that contract by doing self-modifications. As I stated in my post above, why did you purchase the support if you aren't going to use it?
B.
"Somewhere along the line, you have to make a tiny modification to support some odd piece of hardware, and suddenly your support contract is worth less than the paper it isn't printed on. What is he going to think of your Open Source when something essential breaks that you can't fix and Red Hat /won't/ fix?"
That is just absolutely silly. If you have a support contract then use the damned thing when you get that esoteric hardware and make Redhat do something with it. then your contract is still valid. Why did you purchase it if you aren't going to use it?!?!?!
B.
"If that's not what you were going for.. apologies."
Nope. That rant is not what I was going for...;-)
Just pointing out history is being rewritten in our media. We went from "they have WMD" to "they have nuclear weapons" to "Now we are bringing them democracy" as each reason was shot down. Add to that the "fair and balanced" reporting of Fox News and you will see the comment's context.
B.
Lol....Great Monty Python reference...
B.
"American soil is safer than ever. And whenever a terrorist travels to Iraq and gets swiss cheesed by one of our boys, it is even safer."
Too much Fox News for your 2 neurons, eh...
Let's try this in simpler terms. Our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is making us MORE at risk of attack not less.
Here is your assignment:
Assume another country, say China since they would have the resources, decided to invade the US on the grounds that we have WMD. Further say that they, not us, will be the ones to "rebuild" after the invasion sending our economy into the toilet (as if it wasn't already there). Would you fight with any means at your disposal including terrorist acts? Would you continue fighting even after they "won" the war?
That is exactly what is going on. The longer we stay there the more likely we are to have another 9/11. And while we are on the subject, why was it only AFTER 9/11 that the US decided to take terrorism seriously? You mean to tell me the other pre-9/11 attacks were unworthy of changing how we dealt with terrorism?
B.
"- Is not free
Ha! By what definition? You're not free to create anarchy, but I'd say you're a lot more free than most countries."
By the definition of our own Constitution. The Patriot Act does away with little things like due process and equal justice under law...
"- Is not democractic
Again, by what bizarro definition do you think this is true? We have elections which is more than some countries have, representative government, etc, etc. You might not like the pols that get elected, but that's tough. You don't always get who you want. Fortunately, the elections are regular enough that we have the chance to vote 'em out next time around if we don't like 'em."
Putting election fraud aside, only 12 % of the elegible voters actually voted. Contrast this with Germany who the US likes to try to kick around with a voter turnout of 79%. So you are telling me that 12% is representative? By what book?
"- Has a completly corrupt and criminal political system
Well, considering one of the parties has ex-KKK members (Robert Byrd), people that drive people have bridges and don't report it until much much later (Ted Kennedy), I'd have to say that there are corrupt and criminal Senators, that's for sure. Strangely, no one in that party seems to have a problem with racists in their part of the Senate."
Both parties have very bad apples. It is the lesser of 2 evils. Look at Strom Thurman or the current crop in the form of Trent Lott, Scooter Libby, et. al. Again, that is what you get when the voter turnout is so low.
"- Has more poverty than any other 1st world country
That's also complete crap. Again, check out France. Those rioters aren't pissed off because they have jobs, bub."
Hurricane Katrina.....Need I say more...
"- Has an increasingly horrible education system
That completely depends on where you are in States. There are a lot of places that have crappy school systems, but there are many many more that have good both public and private schools.
And the last time I checked, there sure were a helluva lot of students from other countries coming over here for school."
Rearrange your wording there and align it to the wealth of the community and you will see the correlation. Poorer communities don't have the resources that richer ones do. It goes to class.
"- Have their own world history which differs quite a bit from the history that the rest of the world knows.
"the rest of the world knows...."...Yeah, right.
Facts are facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
Histroy is written by the victors. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is a huge skew in our history especially when dealing with our justifications for military actions. That skew is seen not only in schools but in our news media. Just look at how many people who watch Fox News think Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks when the reality is the majority of attackers were Saudi.
"- Indoctrinates it's people about the same as old Soviet Union did and about the same as todays North Korea and China.
Except, if that were true, you: (A) Wouldn't have been able to post that message and (B) probably would already be arrested just for stating it."
And the Patriot Act allows for just that. He still can be arrested for that post just like I can be for this one. Worst thing is they could keep us indefinately without access to attornies for as long as they like. Just ask anyone they rounded up after 9/11....Oh wait, you aren't allowed to ask them...
B.
"I'd say we have been very effective fighting terrorism."
You would be very wrong. Let's list them out shall we...
Pre-9/11
World Trade Center attack of 1993
USS Cole attack
Oaklahoma City Bombing
US Embassy bombings from 1993-2000 6 in all IIRC
All the hostage takings from 1970 on including the Iranian Hostages
Pan Am flight 103 and other airline bombings
Post 9/11
World Trade Center attack 9/11
Pentagon attack 9/11
DC Anthrax attacks (never solved)
DC Sniper attacks (solved)
WV / OH Sniper attacks (never solved)
Bomb material stopped at Canadian border (culprits still not found)
Now, let's look at what has been done...
Trillions spent on airport security and border patrol the latest test of that security still found that you can get through with knives, guns, drugs, and explosives.
The most terror ridden place on the planet (Isreal) still has attacks of great magnatude yet still claims to be the most secure. It is fooling yourself if you actually think you can win a "war on terrorism" in the way this administration has been doing it. If Isreal can't stop it with the resources of the US behind it what makes you think it can be stopped here using the same tactics?
B.
"So, if they charge you a gynormous fee and they call it sales tax, they are legal if they pay the entire amount collected as tax to the state."
The reason for this is simple, if they overcharge it can be recouped with a tax return. That is the whole reason you file a return in the first place.
B.
"It doesn't matter that you dislike microsoft, the idea is a good one and microsoft is a powerful company that has the finicial resources to promote political change."
Riddled with loopholes a Mac truch can drive 4 abreast though. Microsoft is a company that depends on user specific and identifying data (activation anyone). They are simply trying to head off the more restrictive ones the states are coming up with.
B.
"As always the weakest link in security is usually the interface between the chair and the keyboard."
/.)
This goes for *nix just as much as any other OS. Microsoft just makes it easier and more lethal. I help loads of people making the "switch" and their biggest beef until recently was that it didn't have autorun. What happened recently? You guessed it! Most distors instituted automount/autorun.
As to this topic, any program that is NOT specifically run by the user is by default not agreed to. Just ask the spyware folk who just recently lost a case (can't recall where but it was covered by
The US Congress / Courts are so busy protecting the rights of corporations they have completely forgotten the rights of people. It is a sad commentary on the times we live in.
B.
The major difference between MS and IBM is one has something other than code to sell. Although MS does have some periphial hardware they sell, it still servives solely on the programs it sells. Going GPL is orders of magnatude harder for them than it was for IBM.
B.
First you have to overcome Monsento's patented grain. Good luck there...
B.
"I personally believe the justice system is a subjective system, and you can never be 100% sure of ANYTHING."
Exactly....That is why our system is adversarial with both sides challenging everything under the sun including the sun. Anything NOT challenged in our system is an admission to it.
B.
You are correct. A person accused of a crime has the right under US law to face their accuser and challenge them. What the Florida court has affirmed is this basic right even if the accuser is a black box. You are talking about someone losing their license to drive at best and their freedom at worst. This is why I have problems with the Patriot Act. It strips you of that right to face your accuser in the name of "National Security". In this day where rights are being eroded at a frightening pace it is refreshing to see the court finally putting some brakes on the slide.
B.
In MS Office, yes I am implying that scripting is bad. Even Microsoft is implying that with the default being set to OFF now. As for using a spreadsheet with macros in it I can safaly say I have never used one with them. This goes for any of the Office crap. Why? Because I have it turned off and won't allow any to run.
Is all scripting bad? I never said it was. Scripting that you have no clue it is running is bad and that is what happens in Office scripting.
B.
Ok, you answer this...
What good is software for a customer (Mass.) that doesn't default to the output they want? How long do you think MS Office will last with the users constantly having to select OpenDocument to be complient with their own laws? It is MS hopes that they won't bother and it is saved in the proprietary format MS coses as the default. What is wrong with allowing the user to set that default?
B.
"Word also had support for WordPerfect documents for years and it didn't seem to keep Microsoft from eating their lunch."
And that is because like OpenDocument, support for != Default. I suspect that they will support it but prevent you from using it as the default. People are lazy when they make documents and as long as they can open them the rest be damned. So unless the default is mandated as OpenDocument expect it to die a silent death.
B.
"3. how easy to script/automate it is"
This is what got them into trouble in the first place. Is there really anyone other than script kiddies who write macroviruses that use this "feature"? Give me a break. Hell, in one of their Office updates the default is OFF for macros...
B.
"why not just remove the battery?"
Why not just throw the damned thing away? I don't own a cell phone and never will. If you can't get me at home / work then it means I don't want to be gotten!
B.