Most speakers, especially computer speakers, have a non-ideal frequency response. So ""equalized" audio" by compensating for this deficient frequency response can make imperfect speakers sound much better.
The same problem would arise with other things if we had matter duplicators like we see in sci-fi, no-one would want to pay for their food, and we would have to have DRMed meals.
If there were DRMed meals I would expect Free meals to become quite popular.
U tends to be 50-80% of N, depending on the book (and whether or not it includes a CD), so there go most situations right there. S can range from 5-25% of N
This has not been my experience. Selling books to other students usually gives S=~U except when a book becomes unresellable (new version). So if you are selling to other students, expect S=~(U*(1-v)) where v is the probability of there being a new version out. Of course that is an expectation and you will probably get either ~S or $0 depending on v. v can be pretty accurately predicted, however, by looking at the age of the book you're buying used.
No, notice that he wanted some assurance that a conversation could be "completely ephemeral". He wants your computer to enforce his DRM scheme against against you. He wants to deny you control of your own computer, that you cannot tell your computer not to delete the data. He also wants the "security" of pretending that information is some sort of "physical object" that you cannot modify or copy.
Yes, some of these are completely contrary to what makes sense for the computer. But a conversation can be made partialy ephemeral. Have a look at this "off the record" plugin for gaim : http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ . You can have a conversation where:
Anyone can forge messages after a conversation to make them look like they came from you. However, during a conversation, your correspondent is assured the messages he sees are authentic and unmodified.
Having the actual data be removed from your computer, however, does require DRM. So he cannot be completely satisfied.
DRM will allow computing to move into a new paradigm where conversations can be reasonably assured of being completely ephemeral OR where "data" can be moved from point A to point B with the relative security and geographic displacement of a physical object. But people lie and copy and cheat and forge and so to do this requires a *trusted platform* - a system you and I can both agree has been verified for honesty by a disinterested third party to our exchange.
This is completely possible without DRM, involving only actions by the end users. If I use pgp or gpg to encrypt an email to you, the insecurity of the computers between us is completely irrelevant.
OS detection is only used for determining if you need patches or to run a virus scanner. If they wanted to run something that people thought was unreasonable they would have a much harder time. People would wonder especially "why don't the Linux people have to use this?". The current system works for these purposes because it is combating lazyness and forgetfulness. For other purposes it would not work so well.
My school does something similar. They scan all computers requesting IPs with nmap -O and put different requirements on you depending on the result. For Windows you can't be open to Blaster or Sasser, for Windows and Mac you need to install a virus scanner (which they have site liscensed). For Linux and other OSs they don't require anything.
One problem with this system is that for Windows and Mac you need to disable any firewall you're running so it can accurately detect what you're running. Its pretty silly.
However, I will mention this, there is a small segment of the shopping population that didn't care anything about quality at all and bought the cheapest POS in the store. They wanted to spend as little as possible, and they didn't care what they got. I'd put them at perhaps 10% of the market, though.
When you buy a computer, always think about what you need it for. For the last four years or so it has been the case that the "cheapest POS in the store" would do everything I needed. And everything most people need.
Reliability has been fine on these store brand "PowerSpecs"[1] and worse with name brands[2]
What is special about these "quality" computers? Why are they worth the extra money? Sounds like you were just a good salesman convincing people to get what they didn't need.
[1] sample size: ~15, one failed hard drive
[2] sample size: 4 Dells, three failed hard drives, one HP, power supply failed.
I'm sorry. I was unclear. I was attempting to describe a scenario in which B hands the weapon to A immediately before the murder, with the assumption that B has a pretty good idea of how the weapon would be used. As in B notices A is very angry with C and hands him a meat cleaver.
I really don't like that this can be done without first obtaining a court order. This is basically adverse to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. It snubs its nose at due process.
The information included in the takedown notice is the same as would be needed for a court order, so if they could get a routine court order with the information, why clog the courts with these?
If B did not hand A the weapon it is less likely that there would have been a murder. B assisted A in something wrong, so B's actions we wrong as well, though a lesser wrong. Are you claiming that all wrongs are equally bad?
The gp had a point but did not express it well at all. Consider the case of A murdering someone and B handing A the gun. "The wrong thing" in this instance is the murdering, so A "did the wrong thing". What B did was also wrong. So we could say that B "did something wrong even though he wasn't the one doing the wrong thing".
Only if the ISP took down the site as of the first notice sent by the RIAA. Their safe harbors are only available if they play by the industries rules.
This part of the DMCA is reasonable. Look at the procedure:
1) The copyright holder demands the takedown.
2) The ISP blocks service.
3) The ISP informs the user about the takedown.
4) The user may demand reinstatement
5) If they did demand so, the ISP puts their stuff back up.
What's wrong with this? What would be better that would still provide adequate protection for copyright holders from piracy and for users from false claims of infringement?
After experiencing great personal tragedy people are often not rational. If someone did commit such a rape or murder I know I would be angry to the point where I might want them to die. I recognize, however, that my judgement would be clouded by my anger and that for the law to allow me vengance in the criminal's death would be unjust.
The problem with copyright is that its becoming a commodity. How long until artists can float copyright on an open market?
What's stopping them now?
That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But its stock anyone can buy, and even better its stock anyone can produce. There's no way to corner this sort of market.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening.
Not really. The point of copyright is to promote innovation and make there be art. Furthermore, people selling their copyrights are not exploited. They can sell or not sell, and if they sell they are stil free to continue to create.
It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
The current legislation is problematic and I agree that there is harm in keeping works too long from the public domain. But the artists are not the victims here, the people are. The artists go on producing as they were, just they can now sell their works for more as they will be longer protected. The people (and other artists who want to build off these works) have to wait longer and longer, perhaps forever.
Artists should be remunerated at every point at which their art is used for financial profit, not entertainment and education.
But entertainment and education are full of use of art for finiancial profit. Should movie theaters get to show films without compensation on the grounds that they are providing entertainment? What about the art that goes in textbooks?
2. Artists should not be able to sell their copyright.
Why? Who does it hurt to allow artists to sell their copyright?
3. Copyright lasts as long as the artist - after that the works are public domain.
Only if we're going to attach copyright to the artist as we've done in (2) does this make sense. But I submit that we do not implement (2), so this point is secondary.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market.
Some artists would be employed, but perhaps fewer. I just don't see how these conditions help the artist. All they seem to do is remove an asset of the artist.
Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me.
Perhaps because currently you do own it; look up "work for hire".
You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
This can be done under the current system. You just need to make up an agreement where the work is not produced "for hire" and there is a specific cost for reproduction.
But with what shell? If you are using cat and echo from within bash, you've got 625512+15412 bits of bloat and your real editor is an unnatural hybrid. So do us a favor and don't knock the Standard Editor.
Slashdot Mirror
Most speakers, especially computer speakers, have a non-ideal frequency response. So ""equalized" audio" by compensating for this deficient frequency response can make imperfect speakers sound much better.
TANSTAFL
If there were DRMed meals I would expect Free meals to become quite popular.
This has not been my experience. Selling books to other students usually gives S=~U except when a book becomes unresellable (new version). So if you are selling to other students, expect S=~(U*(1-v)) where v is the probability of there being a new version out. Of course that is an expectation and you will probably get either ~S or $0 depending on v. v can be pretty accurately predicted, however, by looking at the age of the book you're buying used.
Just gotta kick the Slashdot habit now.
Stallman Allert
Even smaller, really. ~50MB. DSL could probably do it. Have a look.
Yes, some of these are completely contrary to what makes sense for the computer. But a conversation can be made partialy ephemeral. Have a look at this "off the record" plugin for gaim : http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ . You can have a conversation where:
Having the actual data be removed from your computer, however, does require DRM. So he cannot be completely satisfied.
This is completely possible without DRM, involving only actions by the end users. If I use pgp or gpg to encrypt an email to you, the insecurity of the computers between us is completely irrelevant.
OS detection is only used for determining if you need patches or to run a virus scanner. If they wanted to run something that people thought was unreasonable they would have a much harder time. People would wonder especially "why don't the Linux people have to use this?". The current system works for these purposes because it is combating lazyness and forgetfulness. For other purposes it would not work so well.
Why not just give the NIC a new MAC? The router's not using its old one anymore.
One problem with this system is that for Windows and Mac you need to disable any firewall you're running so it can accurately detect what you're running. Its pretty silly.
When you buy a computer, always think about what you need it for. For the last four years or so it has been the case that the "cheapest POS in the store" would do everything I needed. And everything most people need.
Reliability has been fine on these store brand "PowerSpecs"[1] and worse with name brands[2]
What is special about these "quality" computers? Why are they worth the extra money? Sounds like you were just a good salesman convincing people to get what they didn't need.
[1] sample size: ~15, one failed hard drive
[2] sample size: 4 Dells, three failed hard drives, one HP, power supply failed.
I'm sorry. I was unclear. I was attempting to describe a scenario in which B hands the weapon to A immediately before the murder, with the assumption that B has a pretty good idea of how the weapon would be used. As in B notices A is very angry with C and hands him a meat cleaver.
The information included in the takedown notice is the same as would be needed for a court order, so if they could get a routine court order with the information, why clog the courts with these?
If B did not hand A the weapon it is less likely that there would have been a murder. B assisted A in something wrong, so B's actions we wrong as well, though a lesser wrong. Are you claiming that all wrongs are equally bad?
This wording is ugly but not nonsensical.
1) The copyright holder demands the takedown.
2) The ISP blocks service.
3) The ISP informs the user about the takedown.
4) The user may demand reinstatement
5) If they did demand so, the ISP puts their stuff back up.
What's wrong with this? What would be better that would still provide adequate protection for copyright holders from piracy and for users from false claims of infringement?
After experiencing great personal tragedy people are often not rational. If someone did commit such a rape or murder I know I would be angry to the point where I might want them to die. I recognize, however, that my judgement would be clouded by my anger and that for the law to allow me vengance in the criminal's death would be unjust.
You don't have to have elected judges to have accountability. It looks to me that this judge was incompetent to the point of justifying impeachment.
And then he gets the "ExtraBucks"
Unfortunately this is not the case. This is one of the issues that GPL v3 needs to resolve.
What's stopping them now?
That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But its stock anyone can buy, and even better its stock anyone can produce. There's no way to corner this sort of market.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening.
Not really. The point of copyright is to promote innovation and make there be art. Furthermore, people selling their copyrights are not exploited. They can sell or not sell, and if they sell they are stil free to continue to create.
It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
The current legislation is problematic and I agree that there is harm in keeping works too long from the public domain. But the artists are not the victims here, the people are. The artists go on producing as they were, just they can now sell their works for more as they will be longer protected. The people (and other artists who want to build off these works) have to wait longer and longer, perhaps forever.
Artists should be remunerated at every point at which their art is used for financial profit, not entertainment and education.
But entertainment and education are full of use of art for finiancial profit. Should movie theaters get to show films without compensation on the grounds that they are providing entertainment? What about the art that goes in textbooks?
2. Artists should not be able to sell their copyright.
Why? Who does it hurt to allow artists to sell their copyright?
3. Copyright lasts as long as the artist - after that the works are public domain.
Only if we're going to attach copyright to the artist as we've done in (2) does this make sense. But I submit that we do not implement (2), so this point is secondary.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market.
Some artists would be employed, but perhaps fewer. I just don't see how these conditions help the artist. All they seem to do is remove an asset of the artist.
Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me.
Perhaps because currently you do own it; look up "work for hire".
You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
This can be done under the current system. You just need to make up an agreement where the work is not produced "for hire" and there is a specific cost for reproduction.
But with what shell? If you are using cat and echo from within bash, you've got 625512+15412 bits of bloat and your real editor is an unnatural hybrid. So do us a favor and don't knock the Standard Editor.
Can they be played under Linux? If they can be played then they can be ripped. If they cannot be played, then Sony is missing a market segment.