i wonder what prompted them to do this in the first place..
My guess: too many commercial companies were using the free license for free player to skirt licensing the patent. i.e. "Hey, you didn't buy any MP3 player.. you bought something else and we thru the MP3 player in for free".
call me a conspiracy theorist but i wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA is behind this somehow
Doubtful, since if you think about it MP3 (the patent and its owners) would be opposed to the RIAA. The RIAA want to stamp MP3s out and replace them with something they consider secure (and no doubt they own the intellectual property on as well). Thompson, et al stand to make more money with greater prolifieration of MP3s.
So basically, loopholes are being closed. I doubt very seriously that there will be a witch hunt for free player developers. If sell some service, appliance, or other software that includes some free implementation of an MP3 decoder (think a hardware MP3 player that uses a GPLed or BSD library for decoding) I'm sure you can expect a letter in the mail. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the likes of Red Hat have to remove all decoders since the new licensing scheme affects them as well.
Its not bending the consumer over because its DUAL LAYERED. i.e. an average everyday CD player sees it as an average everyday CD. Rip away!
What you can't rip is the enhanced audio stream (on the DVD layer), but as someone else pointed out earlier you really wouldn't want to anyway if all you're doing is compressing down to mp3.
T'aint cheap, but maybe a laser to laser connection set up between buildings. You should only have to point the access points out the window at each other.
As much as this has been debated to *death* in various Apple forums (including/.) -- and as much as I still think that it is unlikely to happen -- this move doesn't look so dumb if Andrew Neff (no, I'd never head of him either) is to be believed. The more Apple can force users and ISVs over to OSX the less technical problems they might/will have if they port Classic over to x86 to retain some sort of backwards compatibility (a'la 68k to PPC).
Man, this latest "Apple will use x86 chips eventually" sure has some legs.
The reason you think I made a mess of my argument is simply becuase you lack the insight to understand.
Oh, preach on swami, the all-seeing one.
You can not compare it to what you are.
Er, what? (I figure you're not a native english speaker so something got lost in the translation. If you are an english speaker though, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice)
You are comparing it to tangible items, that cost tangible money per item.
The Porsche yes, the education no, the GPL example no. You're one for three (which isn't a bad average if you're a baseball player... unfortunatly this isn't baseball).
You medical school analogy is also rediculous, you could read through books, and even look over class notes without paying for them.
Let's review what you're arguing:
It is ok to pirate software (i.e. use the software without abiding by the licensing agreement). After I threw up the GPL example you further narrowed that argument down by saying it was ok *as long as it was not for financial gain*. So lets go thru this argument nice and slow so you can follow along.
- You say software has no incremental cost - I say teaching also has no incremental cost
- You say piracy is ok since you're not "costing" the software producer any $$$ (since the incremental cost is 0) - I say sitting in on Harvard Medical School class for free is ok (since the incremetal cost of teaching is 0)
- You say "You medical school analogy is also rediculous, you could read through books, and even look over class notes without paying for them" - I say "You can get a computer education without using MS software"
but
- You say "most of the world and potential jobs will use... guess what... proprietary software!!! Using the pirated software for education when you can't afford it, is not always because your too cheap. Like it or not, many jobs require experience on programs that you can't get for free." - I say "hey, just looking at books and reading class notes will not get you a medical license"
So, if its ok to pirate MS software because a) the incremental cost is 0 b) its not being used for financial gain c) you can't subsitute it with Linux/*BSD/MacOS because the rest of the world uses MS products
then the same logic says it should be ok for me to get a free medical education at Harvard because a) the incremental cost is 0 b) its not being used for financial gain (I just want to help people, dammit) c) you can't substitute a proper medical degree with reading books and class notes.
You simply twist analogies into your own little reasons.
No, its called having logic and being consistent. You might want to look into it.
Sure I am. I'm saying that breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of whether you think its a good idea or not.
You are trying to justify your stance by entangling the whole situation into one package. Your Porsche example is idiotically rediculous, bearing absolutely nothing in common with software piracy.
Just because a Porsche is a physical item that has incremental material cost and software doesn't does not mean there's any difference. A Porsche doesn't design or assemble itself. Software doesn't write itself. In both cases you are breaking the law, which is all find and dandy, I just don't agree with it.
Again, if you would think things out before blabbing, if MS disregared the GPL, that would only be for financial benefit
So learining doesn't have a financial benefit? Isn't that the reason we get an education, so we can do something with our lives? Get a better job? GET PAID?
Learning to be a doctor doesn't come cheap. I couldn't afford to do it (and have no urge to go into hock to pay for it). Should I be able to show up to Harvard Med school and say "howdy doc, I'm here for my education, which I'm not going to pay for?" I mean, its not like they're going to lose any money if I sit in on classes. Just like software, there's no incremental cost between teaching one person or 100, therefor I'm justified in expecting my free education.
I know this will be hard to understand...
Apparently, because you're making a right mess of your arguement...
but.... most of the world and potential jobs will use... guess what... proprietary software!!!
And most of the people who will cure you at a hosptial is... guess what... a doctor. So are you saying I should be able to go to medical school for free?
Like it or not, many jobs require experience on programs that you can't get for free.
Of course, the point of all of this is what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you don't like MS (or, more importantly can't afford them) don't use thier software. Its that simple. There *are* alternatives (and ones that are substancially cheaper). Simply disregarding IP laws altogether simply because you don't like the price MS are charging opens you up to some nasty reciprication. If its morally ok for you to disregard MS's license and use their software, then its morally ok for MS to diregard the GPL and fold any source code they feel like into their product without releasing that source to the public.
You think MS is a bum deal, then don't buy it (or license it). To me, morally there's no difference saying "hey, their software is too expensive to buy so I'm just going to copy it" than me saying "I think Porsches are too expensive, so I'm just going to steal one."
So you're saying theft (or license violation) is perfectly ok if its simply for learning?
So I should be able to download all of my college textbooks of the net? I should be able to go to any college class and not pay tuition, since its in the name of education? What if in my previous statement all the money gathered thru the sale of the computers went to funding schools? Would it be okay then?
So two wrongs make a right as long as nothing physical is taken, and its for educational reasons.
Is what theft? Not paying for the license or the Porsche?
But lets look at the situation another way. What if Malaysia decided to install Linux and GNU software on a bunch of machines, but they made critical changes to the software (for example, such that it would only run on machines with a secure rom installed). They then sold it (and the tweaked hardware), but didn't release the changes in the source? Thier excuse? "We're a poor country, we don't have a lot of $$$ to throw around so we leveraged all the good work done on Linux and the GNU toolkit. We tweaked it so we could sell it (cheaply, with the modded hardware) and bring in a nice revenue stream for our gov't treasury.
Would that violation of a licence agreement be ok?
Unfortunatly, this is how the IT industry works (or has worked). I guess all marketing departments do this to an extent, but IT is really the worst.
A. Promise the moon, to be delivered within two years B. Spend 6 months talking about the Moon, but never really getting into details beyond buzzwords. B2. If new and interesting technology comes along within those 6 months claim the Moon will contain it as well C. Come out with alpha software (Moon v.1 Preview) that has little functionality built in but looks nice D. Slip schedule ('We're adding new and exciting features') E..Y Wait Z. Deliver something that could quite possibly be useful and innovative, but deliveres about 1/10th of the orig. promise.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but when you are changing markets (or branching out into new ones) its a bit arrogant to think that the folks that bought other stuff from you are going to jump joy. As I has said in the parent post, just because Porsche makes a kick ass lawnmower doesn't mean that Porsche owners are going to want it.
Or a better analogy: if a fine furniture manufacturer decided to get into the piping and plumbing business then they better not rest their fortunes on selling piping and plumbing to all of their furniture clients. You may get a few, but if you go into the piping and plumbing business then you're better off selling to plumbers than going around to everyone who bought an chest-of-drawers trying to get them excited about U bends.
... because this quote is dopey no matter who said it:
Jim Allchin, one of the company's top vice presidents, acknowledged the shift in focus in the industry from personal computers to plumbing, and bemoaned the difficulty of getting Microsoft's traditional consumers to care about its new vision.
Well gee, Jim, you have it a bit backwards don't you. Shouldn't the company care about its customers' vision? I mean, if Porsche designed a kick ass lawmower -- I mean a innovative leap in lawnmower technology -- would you expect Porsche's traditional to care about Porsche's new vision?
And the driving record *is* a factor of insurance costs, but its not the only significant factor that incurs a cost at an insurance company.
Two folks both have similar driving records. One drives a $15K escord, the other drives a $150K Ferrari. The $150K car owner carries a greater liability than the $15K since although the odds of an accident are the same (according to their driving records) when something does happen the $150K car is more expensive to replace than the $15K.
Somewhat the same logic goes with distance to work. The assumption is that most of your driving on a primary car will be to and from work. Thus, the farther away you are, the more chance of an accident happening (not on an individual basis, but on aggregate). Odds are (again, on aggregate) all other things being equal if I drive 1 mile to and from work I'll have a lower chance of being in an accident than if I drive 30 miles to and from work.
Of course, if I live in a high crime area the chances of my car being stolen, thus the insurance company incurring a cost, is higher than if I live in a low crime area. Again, this has nothing to do with my driving record.
So while driving record does account for a lot for the cost of your insurance coverage, there are a lot of other factors that make significant differences. I don't think I should pay the same amount of insurance as someone who has the exact same driving record, but owns a Ferrari, lives in a shady area, and drives 60 miles a day to and from work since I'd be covering a lot of his liability with my payment.
What I love is the forcing of us people who can't afford a new car with anti-lock brakes (not that they help any) to VOLUNTEER to pay higher rates and the forcing of us who can't afford the rent in the city and have to live out in the boondocks to VOLUNTEER to pay higher rates.
So what's the solution? Make everyone pay a flat rate? Grrrrreat. That's all I need. I'll have to subsidize people with awful driving records, people who have expensive cars and/or cars that are thieves favorites, people with multiple DUIs, etc.
Hell, lets make all insurance that way. I'll have no problem having my rates jacked up so that a fat, smoking pile of blubber and I pay the same month to month.
Jeeze, at what point did people start demanding that life be hassle/problem free?
I was talking about the black boxes (the 5 second one) not the Kid Black Box. Those do seem to be pretty nasty, but those are aftermarket additions that the owner chooses to install.
*The data collected cannot be used to prosecute you (in the USA, I think that's the 5th amendment - you don't have to answer questions that may incriminate you) * The court cannot order the release of the information to anyone
Agreed. The only niggle point would be the second. Anything admitted to the court record becomes public record. But I would want the court to protect as much data as humanly possible.
That's too bad. At least you might trust one or two of the companies you buy things from. I don't trust a company that puts in extras like this, without telling me. You know that you have to pay for the things you buy.
No, that's pretty normal. I don't know too many people who disassemble each and every product they purchase (including grinding down each and every IC so they can visually inspect each circuit to double check it only does wha the spec sheet says it does). We all make assumptions about things we buy.
They will get it at break tag inspections, oil changes or what not. Insurance companies will pay for the data untill it's mandatory, then they will just put in a cell phone and make you pay for that too. More power to you if you never have to take your car to someone else's garage.
I have a very hard time believing that unauthorized collection of the boxes data would be legal (and the Harris Technical website seems to back this up, re: Brady vs Maryland) and an equally hard time believing that it would be found constitutional if a law was passed making it legal.
I'm hoping my next job is in bike riding distance, like my last one. Cars just suck more and more. Riding my bike to my office at the local university was so much more relaxing than my current dodge of road kill and pickup trucks.
I VOLUNTEER to pay for antilock breaks or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
I VOLUNTEER to own a non sports car or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
I VOLUNTEER to live closer to my place of employment or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
God, you're right. This is straight out of Stallinist Russia. Let's rise up and overthrow the tyranny that forces us Sports car driving, non-anti lock brake buying, long commuting bastard to pay more insurance...
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that was true it still would make no sense for Thompson, et al to be doing this at the request of the RIAA.
"Hey guys, help us destroy one of your own revenue sources and move everyone to someone elses."
This isn't being done at the behest of the RIAA or Microsoft.
i wonder what prompted them to do this in the first place..
My guess: too many commercial companies were using the free license for free player to skirt licensing the patent. i.e. "Hey, you didn't buy any MP3 player.. you bought something else and we thru the MP3 player in for free".
call me a conspiracy theorist but i wouldn't be suprised if the RIAA is behind this somehow
Doubtful, since if you think about it MP3 (the patent and its owners) would be opposed to the RIAA. The RIAA want to stamp MP3s out and replace them with something they consider secure (and no doubt they own the intellectual property on as well). Thompson, et al stand to make more money with greater prolifieration of MP3s.
So basically, loopholes are being closed. I doubt very seriously that there will be a witch hunt for free player developers. If sell some service, appliance, or other software that includes some free implementation of an MP3 decoder (think a hardware MP3 player that uses a GPLed or BSD library for decoding) I'm sure you can expect a letter in the mail. The unfortunate side effect of this is that the likes of Red Hat have to remove all decoders since the new licensing scheme affects them as well.
Actually, the world is divided into three types of people:
People who can add and people who cannot.
Because they'd make a hell of a lot more money from ISPs.
Its not bending the consumer over because its DUAL LAYERED. i.e. an average everyday CD player sees it as an average everyday CD. Rip away!
What you can't rip is the enhanced audio stream (on the DVD layer), but as someone else pointed out earlier you really wouldn't want to anyway if all you're doing is compressing down to mp3.
T'aint cheap, but maybe a laser to laser connection set up between buildings. You should only have to point the access points out the window at each other.
As much as this has been debated to *death* in various Apple forums (including /.) -- and as much as I still think that it is unlikely to happen -- this move doesn't look so dumb if Andrew Neff (no, I'd never head of him either) is to be believed. The more Apple can force users and ISVs over to OSX the less technical problems they might/will have if they port Classic over to x86 to retain some sort of backwards compatibility (a'la 68k to PPC).
Man, this latest "Apple will use x86 chips eventually" sure has some legs.
The reason you think I made a mess of my argument is simply becuase you lack the insight to understand.
Oh, preach on swami, the all-seeing one.
You can not compare it to what you are.
Er, what? (I figure you're not a native english speaker so something got lost in the translation. If you are an english speaker though, you're about as sharp as a sack of wet mice)
You are comparing it to tangible items, that cost tangible money per item.
The Porsche yes, the education no, the GPL example no. You're one for three (which isn't a bad average if you're a baseball player... unfortunatly this isn't baseball).
You medical school analogy is also rediculous, you could read through books, and even look over class notes without paying for them.
Let's review what you're arguing:
It is ok to pirate software (i.e. use the software without abiding by the licensing agreement). After I threw up the GPL example you further narrowed that argument down by saying it was ok *as long as it was not for financial gain*. So lets go thru this argument nice and slow so you can follow along.
- You say software has no incremental cost
- I say teaching also has no incremental cost
- You say piracy is ok since you're not "costing" the software producer any $$$ (since the incremental cost is 0)
- I say sitting in on Harvard Medical School class for free is ok (since the incremetal cost of teaching is 0)
- You say "You medical school analogy is also rediculous, you could read through books, and even look over class notes without paying for them"
- I say "You can get a computer education without using MS software"
but
- You say "most of the world and potential jobs will use... guess what... proprietary software!!! Using the pirated software for education when you can't afford it, is not always because your too cheap. Like it or not, many jobs require experience on programs that you can't get for free."
- I say "hey, just looking at books and reading class notes will not get you a medical license"
So, if its ok to pirate MS software because
a) the incremental cost is 0
b) its not being used for financial gain
c) you can't subsitute it with Linux/*BSD/MacOS because the rest of the world uses MS products
then the same logic says it should be ok for me to get a free medical education at Harvard because
a) the incremental cost is 0
b) its not being used for financial gain (I just want to help people, dammit)
c) you can't substitute a proper medical degree with reading books and class notes.
You simply twist analogies into your own little reasons.
No, its called having logic and being consistent. You might want to look into it.
You are not making any sense.
.... most of the world and potential jobs will use... guess what... proprietary software!!!
... guess what ... a doctor. So are you saying I should be able to go to medical school for free?
Sure I am. I'm saying that breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of whether you think its a good idea or not.
You are trying to justify your stance by entangling the whole situation into one package. Your Porsche example is idiotically rediculous, bearing absolutely nothing in common with software piracy.
Just because a Porsche is a physical item that has incremental material cost and software doesn't does not mean there's any difference. A Porsche doesn't design or assemble itself. Software doesn't write itself. In both cases you are breaking the law, which is all find and dandy, I just don't agree with it.
Again, if you would think things out before blabbing, if MS disregared the GPL, that would only be for financial benefit
So learining doesn't have a financial benefit? Isn't that the reason we get an education, so we can do something with our lives? Get a better job? GET PAID?
Learning to be a doctor doesn't come cheap. I couldn't afford to do it (and have no urge to go into hock to pay for it). Should I be able to show up to Harvard Med school and say "howdy doc, I'm here for my education, which I'm not going to pay for?" I mean, its not like they're going to lose any money if I sit in on classes. Just like software, there's no incremental cost between teaching one person or 100, therefor I'm justified in expecting my free education.
I know this will be hard to understand...
Apparently, because you're making a right mess of your arguement...
but
And most of the people who will cure you at a hosptial is
Like it or not, many jobs require experience on programs that you can't get for free.
So, pay for them.
Of course, the point of all of this is what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
If you don't like MS (or, more importantly can't afford them) don't use thier software. Its that simple. There *are* alternatives (and ones that are substancially cheaper). Simply disregarding IP laws altogether simply because you don't like the price MS are charging opens you up to some nasty reciprication. If its morally ok for you to disregard MS's license and use their software, then its morally ok for MS to diregard the GPL and fold any source code they feel like into their product without releasing that source to the public.
You think MS is a bum deal, then don't buy it (or license it). To me, morally there's no difference saying "hey, their software is too expensive to buy so I'm just going to copy it" than me saying "I think Porsches are too expensive, so I'm just going to steal one."
So you're saying theft (or license violation) is perfectly ok if its simply for learning?
So I should be able to download all of my college textbooks of the net? I should be able to go to any college class and not pay tuition, since its in the name of education? What if in my previous statement all the money gathered thru the sale of the computers went to funding schools? Would it be okay then?
So two wrongs make a right as long as nothing physical is taken, and its for educational reasons.
Is what theft? Not paying for the license or the Porsche?
But lets look at the situation another way. What if Malaysia decided to install Linux and GNU software on a bunch of machines, but they made critical changes to the software (for example, such that it would only run on machines with a secure rom installed). They then sold it (and the tweaked hardware), but didn't release the changes in the source? Thier excuse? "We're a poor country, we don't have a lot of $$$ to throw around so we leveraged all the good work done on Linux and the GNU toolkit. We tweaked it so we could sell it (cheaply, with the modded hardware) and bring in a nice revenue stream for our gov't treasury.
Would that violation of a licence agreement be ok?
So theft is ok if you don't get caught. Maybe I should burn the Porsche dealership down after I steal it, you know, cover up the crime.
Of course it always looks black & white when the issue dosn't affect you because your can either afford it all, or are making money from it!
Well, I can't afford a Porsche, so I guess its ok to go steal it.
Sure there are cheaper cars that get the job done, but that Porsche is soooooo sexy.
So two wrongs do make a right! Fantastic.
That's why I said by aggregate, not for an individual. When you look at the statistics longer commutes corralate with a higher accident rate.
Unfortunatly, this is how the IT industry works (or has worked). I guess all marketing departments do this to an extent, but IT is really the worst.
A. Promise the moon, to be delivered within two years
B. Spend 6 months talking about the Moon, but never really getting into details beyond buzzwords.
B2. If new and interesting technology comes along within those 6 months claim the Moon will contain it as well
C. Come out with alpha software (Moon v.1 Preview) that has little functionality built in but looks nice
D. Slip schedule ('We're adding new and exciting features')
E..Y Wait
Z. Deliver something that could quite possibly be useful and innovative, but deliveres about 1/10th of the orig. promise.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but when you are changing markets (or branching out into new ones) its a bit arrogant to think that the folks that bought other stuff from you are going to jump joy. As I has said in the parent post, just because Porsche makes a kick ass lawnmower doesn't mean that Porsche owners are going to want it.
Or a better analogy: if a fine furniture manufacturer decided to get into the piping and plumbing business then they better not rest their fortunes on selling piping and plumbing to all of their furniture clients. You may get a few, but if you go into the piping and plumbing business then you're better off selling to plumbers than going around to everyone who bought an chest-of-drawers trying to get them excited about U bends.
And the driving record *is* a factor of insurance costs, but its not the only significant factor that incurs a cost at an insurance company.
Two folks both have similar driving records. One drives a $15K escord, the other drives a $150K Ferrari. The $150K car owner carries a greater liability than the $15K since although the odds of an accident are the same (according to their driving records) when something does happen the $150K car is more expensive to replace than the $15K.
Somewhat the same logic goes with distance to work. The assumption is that most of your driving on a primary car will be to and from work. Thus, the farther away you are, the more chance of an accident happening (not on an individual basis, but on aggregate). Odds are (again, on aggregate) all other things being equal if I drive 1 mile to and from work I'll have a lower chance of being in an accident than if I drive 30 miles to and from work.
Of course, if I live in a high crime area the chances of my car being stolen, thus the insurance company incurring a cost, is higher than if I live in a low crime area. Again, this has nothing to do with my driving record.
So while driving record does account for a lot for the cost of your insurance coverage, there are a lot of other factors that make significant differences. I don't think I should pay the same amount of insurance as someone who has the exact same driving record, but owns a Ferrari, lives in a shady area, and drives 60 miles a day to and from work since I'd be covering a lot of his liability with my payment.
What I love is the forcing of us people who can't afford a new car with anti-lock brakes (not that they help any) to VOLUNTEER to pay higher rates and the forcing of us who can't afford the rent in the city and have to live out in the boondocks to VOLUNTEER to pay higher rates.
So what's the solution? Make everyone pay a flat rate? Grrrrreat. That's all I need. I'll have to subsidize people with awful driving records, people who have expensive cars and/or cars that are thieves favorites, people with multiple DUIs, etc.
Hell, lets make all insurance that way. I'll have no problem having my rates jacked up so that a fat, smoking pile of blubber and I pay the same month to month.
Jeeze, at what point did people start demanding that life be hassle/problem free?
I was talking about the black boxes (the 5 second one) not the Kid Black Box. Those do seem to be pretty nasty, but those are aftermarket additions that the owner chooses to install.
*The data collected cannot be used to prosecute you (in the USA, I think that's the 5th amendment - you don't have to answer questions that may incriminate you)
* The court cannot order the release of the information to anyone
Agreed. The only niggle point would be the second. Anything admitted to the court record becomes public record. But I would want the court to protect as much data as humanly possible.
That's too bad. At least you might trust one or two of the companies you buy things from. I don't trust a company that puts in extras like this, without telling me. You know that you have to pay for the things you buy.
No, that's pretty normal. I don't know too many people who disassemble each and every product they purchase (including grinding down each and every IC so they can visually inspect each circuit to double check it only does wha the spec sheet says it does). We all make assumptions about things we buy.
They will get it at break tag inspections, oil changes or what not. Insurance companies will pay for the data untill it's mandatory, then they will just put in a cell phone and make you pay for that too. More power to you if you never have to take your car to someone else's garage.
I have a very hard time believing that unauthorized collection of the boxes data would be legal (and the Harris Technical website seems to back this up, re: Brady vs Maryland) and an equally hard time believing that it would be found constitutional if a law was passed making it legal.
I'm hoping my next job is in bike riding distance, like my last one. Cars just suck more and more. Riding my bike to my office at the local university was so much more relaxing than my current dodge of road kill and pickup trucks.
Wow, something we agree on.
I VOLUNTEER to pay for antilock breaks or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
I VOLUNTEER to own a non sports car or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
I VOLUNTEER to live closer to my place of employment or I VOLUNTEER to pay a higher premium.
God, you're right. This is straight out of Stallinist Russia. Let's rise up and overthrow the tyranny that forces us Sports car driving, non-anti lock brake buying, long commuting bastard to pay more insurance...