I agree with your entire post, except the last point. You have no guarantee that the CDs you own now will be legal to rip in the future. (Of course, it should be, but then again, the RIAA shouldn't be filing the most lawsuits at one time of any organization in the history of the United States.)
Yes they will. We recently bought a few Dell machines and seeing as I already have my own OEM XP licenses I asked them to remove XP from the hard drive and they obliged, and deducted £40/machine or something from the invoice.
Two quick points in reply to that:
1. You probably just broke the terms of your EULA. Microsoft OEM licenses are usually non-transferrable and can't be separated from the computer they were installed on. The relevant text at the computer I'm sitting at now is: "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE..."
2. Try doing the same thing when purchasing one computer for home use.
2. final cut pro has had some serious copy protection since its 1.0 release, long before iwork. quicktime pro and osx server also require a key.
I humbly stand corrected.
I *have* used Windows in the last six years (it's my primary platform until this computer breaks and I switch to a Mac) and the GP poster is absolutely correct. Each release adds more and more "features" designed to "protect users from piracy" by removing their control of their own computer.
Consider, for example, Product Activation, which Microsoft added in Windows XP. Now, not only do you have to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using their operating system, but you must also ask Microsoft permission each time you do so.
There are innumerable accounts of people who've had problems with Product Activation, but let's assume activation is flawless and that no legally-licensed Windows user will ever be flagged for activation. This February, Microsoft changed the rules, and all of a sudden, owners of an OEM edition of Windows (almost everybody) now have to call Microsoft EVERY TIME they reinstall their hard drive, and answer questions to prove they own (excuse me, _license_) the software they're trying to install. This "service" is a feature of Microsoft's Genuine Advantage program, but I don't see any advantage in being treated like a criminal.
Windows Media Player is also the subject of "enhancements" by Microsoft, and in June, 2002, Microsoft decided to add a new condition to Media Player's EULA with the patch for security bulletin MS02-032. Now, instead of consenting to updates to their computer, Microsoft gets to decide that Media Player updates "will be automatically downloaded onto your computer, [and] these security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer."
Now, Longhorn will soon be released (eventually), and users will find that their computer is the subject of even more restrictions. Palladium was canceled for both PR and time constraint reasons (thank goodness), but make no mistake - Longhorn will have more "features" designed to take even more control from computer owners and put it in Microsoft's hands.
So, now what? Well, you'll no doubt tell me that we have the freedom to switch to Linux, but how free is it? Neither Dell nor the other PC manufacturers will sell me a computer with an empty hard drive at the same price as the bundled version, let alone cheaper. I should not have to pay for an unused copy of Windows (which Microsoft will not refund the cost of, in violation of THEIR OWN EULA), and I should not have to purchase my computer from a fly-by-night retailer who might not be around next year to honor my warranty.
Yes, Apple has their own problems with intellectual property ethics. For example, I have not and will not purchase music from the iTunes Music Store unless they remove DRM from the "bargain". However, at the moment, Apple is still mostly treating their customers right. Until iWork, for example, their was no such thing as typing in a serial number in an Apple product. I am concerned that Macromedia and Adobe are starting to implement activation on the Mac versions of their software, but there are FOSS alternatives that I can use.
I'm not an Apple troll - I've been using DOS and Windows for 15 years, and I used to ridicule Apple until OS X was released. I have no loyalties to any company - I will happily give my money to the companies that treat me as a valued, important customer, rather than a criminal.
Change is in the air. It started about the time Microsoft began demonizing the people who lined their pockets.
Have you looked at Textpattern? It's simple, fast, and easy-to-use, once you get the hang of it. I will probably be moving to it once version 1.0 comes out, which should be any day now...
Best of all, unlike another open source ethically challenged weblog system, they make their money honestly, by running a hosting service called TextDrive.
This was not any old error; this was completely and utterly stupid. Wordpress got a huge boost in their user base from Six Apart's recent PR blunder, but I think they're going to find that they just ruined it. In my mind, linkfarming is obviously and completely unethical. He should have known better, and Wordpress is going to lose a lot of market share because of this.
I wasn't planning on moving to Wordpress anyway because the software phones home, but this is even worse. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even SCO wouldn't make a misstep as bad as this.
Yes, I agree this is probably not illegal. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Are you sure they're AC signals? I think they're DC. Telephones use DC for the speaker (AC is only used for the ringer), so you'd think home stereos would use the same principle. The speaker vibrates by altering the strength of the signal, not the direction. If the signals are DC, a diode-like cable isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Dual-licensing only works if every person with a copyright interest in the code agrees. In practice, this is extremely difficult unless either the copyright holder doesn't accept outside patches, or requires a transfer of copyright to do so.
Then they should have no problem putting a public statement on their web site that their patents may be used for any purpose, with the condition that if you sue them (or anybody else?), your license to the patents is void.
(The answers to this post come from the iTunes Terms of Service. Of course, "Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement," so they can take away any "rights" they've granted you at any time.)
So what part of burning the file to CD and ripping it to another player requires Apple's permission?
9b. "Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you."
What part of the DRM is preventing you from putting an excerpt on your web page? Last I checked, you could still burn it to CD, you can still use the digital transfer and you can still use the analogue hole.
What happens when the analog hole is also made illegal? What happens if Apple decides that I'm a copyright infringer and turns off access to my entire playlist? (14a: "If you fail, or Apple suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to...violation of the Usage Rules or any license to the software, Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may:... (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof).") Note that I don't even have to have done anything wrong; Apple only must "suspect" I did.
Oh you mean you can't do it with a specific piece of software or via a specific method that you prefer? Last I looked, that wasn't part of fair use.
I am required to use only their software. 8b: "You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service." Since that's the case, if they choose to modify the agreement, I'm stuck, and I can no longer assert my fair use rights.
Just in case you didn't read the above, here's why all of this is unacceptable: "We are altering the deal. Pray we do not alter it any further."
I believe I have the rights you speak of. Rights (in the United States) come from the Constitution, and laws are supposed to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not limit it.
I hold that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ("[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of...useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors...the exclusive Right to their respective Writings...;"). The "limited Times" is key here. It's there because copyright is supposed to ensure works make it into the public domain after some period of time. That doesn't do us any good if we can't get to them due to DRM.
Of course, since Apple has more money than me, they make the rules, but that's an argument for another day.
It's a violation of my rights that I can't transfer a 8-track from 8-track player A to 8-track player B without the 8-track manufacturer's permission. It's also a violation of my rights that I can't put a 30-second excerpt of the 8-track on my web page for the purpose of critiquing the singer (a recognized fair use).
I know the AC was being funny, but he has a very valid point. People are not pirating music with PyMusique.
Our friends at the RIAA want to stop the rampant copyright infringement, right? Here's how:
1. Stop suing the people you want as your paying customers.
1a. Stop suing little old ladies that may not be your customers, but generate massive public sympathy when covered in the media.
2. Change iTMS and friends to do digital watermarking, instead of digital restrictions management.
All of a sudden, everybody's happy! The RIAA keeps their income and can still go after the worst copyright infringers (after politely asking them to cease and desist), Apple sells more iPods because people like me are less worried about draconian DRM methods, society gets the fair use rights they are owed, and judges can finally focus on dealing with white collar criminals rather than thousands of 13-year-olds who are nothing but music fans.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your entire post, except the last point. You have no guarantee that the CDs you own now will be legal to rip in the future. (Of course, it should be, but then again, the RIAA shouldn't be filing the most lawsuits at one time of any organization in the history of the United States.)
After reading section 3 of the GPL, I think you must still distribute the source with the executable code, even if it's unmodified.
I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, of course.
Google is your friend. Yahoo! is also your friend.
d ollar_bills.htm
"The $2 and $1 notes do not have a security thread." - http://www.accubanker.com/services/article3.phtml
"Chris Johnson, assistant to the special agent in charge of secret service in Houston, said he does not feel that the pens are accurate." - http://www.tamu.edu/upd/BCS_hit_with_forged_five_
Yes they will. We recently bought a few Dell machines and seeing as I already have my own OEM XP licenses I asked them to remove XP from the hard drive and they obliged, and deducted £40/machine or something from the invoice.
Two quick points in reply to that:
1. You probably just broke the terms of your EULA. Microsoft OEM licenses are usually non-transferrable and can't be separated from the computer they were installed on. The relevant text at the computer I'm sitting at now is: "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE..."
2. Try doing the same thing when purchasing one computer for home use.
2. final cut pro has had some serious copy protection since its 1.0 release, long before iwork. quicktime pro and osx server also require a key.
I humbly stand corrected.
I *have* used Windows in the last six years (it's my primary platform until this computer breaks and I switch to a Mac) and the GP poster is absolutely correct. Each release adds more and more "features" designed to "protect users from piracy" by removing their control of their own computer.
Consider, for example, Product Activation, which Microsoft added in Windows XP. Now, not only do you have to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using their operating system, but you must also ask Microsoft permission each time you do so.
There are innumerable accounts of people who've had problems with Product Activation, but let's assume activation is flawless and that no legally-licensed Windows user will ever be flagged for activation. This February, Microsoft changed the rules, and all of a sudden, owners of an OEM edition of Windows (almost everybody) now have to call Microsoft EVERY TIME they reinstall their hard drive, and answer questions to prove they own (excuse me, _license_) the software they're trying to install. This "service" is a feature of Microsoft's Genuine Advantage program, but I don't see any advantage in being treated like a criminal.
Windows Media Player is also the subject of "enhancements" by Microsoft, and in June, 2002, Microsoft decided to add a new condition to Media Player's EULA with the patch for security bulletin MS02-032. Now, instead of consenting to updates to their computer, Microsoft gets to decide that Media Player updates "will be automatically downloaded onto your computer, [and] these security related updates may disable your ability to copy and/or play Secure Content and use other software on your computer."
Now, Longhorn will soon be released (eventually), and users will find that their computer is the subject of even more restrictions. Palladium was canceled for both PR and time constraint reasons (thank goodness), but make no mistake - Longhorn will have more "features" designed to take even more control from computer owners and put it in Microsoft's hands.
So, now what? Well, you'll no doubt tell me that we have the freedom to switch to Linux, but how free is it? Neither Dell nor the other PC manufacturers will sell me a computer with an empty hard drive at the same price as the bundled version, let alone cheaper. I should not have to pay for an unused copy of Windows (which Microsoft will not refund the cost of, in violation of THEIR OWN EULA), and I should not have to purchase my computer from a fly-by-night retailer who might not be around next year to honor my warranty.
Yes, Apple has their own problems with intellectual property ethics. For example, I have not and will not purchase music from the iTunes Music Store unless they remove DRM from the "bargain". However, at the moment, Apple is still mostly treating their customers right. Until iWork, for example, their was no such thing as typing in a serial number in an Apple product. I am concerned that Macromedia and Adobe are starting to implement activation on the Mac versions of their software, but there are FOSS alternatives that I can use.
I'm not an Apple troll - I've been using DOS and Windows for 15 years, and I used to ridicule Apple until OS X was released. I have no loyalties to any company - I will happily give my money to the companies that treat me as a valued, important customer, rather than a criminal.
Change is in the air. It started about the time Microsoft began demonizing the people who lined their pockets.
That's not true. I've done several "Free after rebate" offers like blank CDs. The real price for those items is NOT $0.
...It wasn't as horrible as many are making it seem.
Sorry, but I consider a bill passed by three senators not only unconstitutional, but horrible.
I would be surprised if anybody in the Doe clan makes the mistake of naming their children "John" or "Jane."
Stranger things have happened.
What happens when you lose the phone?
Have you looked at Textpattern? It's simple, fast, and easy-to-use, once you get the hang of it. I will probably be moving to it once version 1.0 comes out, which should be any day now...
Best of all, unlike another open source ethically challenged weblog system, they make their money honestly, by running a hosting service called TextDrive.
This was not any old error; this was completely and utterly stupid. Wordpress got a huge boost in their user base from Six Apart's recent PR blunder, but I think they're going to find that they just ruined it. In my mind, linkfarming is obviously and completely unethical. He should have known better, and Wordpress is going to lose a lot of market share because of this.
I wasn't planning on moving to Wordpress anyway because the software phones home, but this is even worse. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Even SCO wouldn't make a misstep as bad as this.
Yes, I agree this is probably not illegal. That doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Not sure if you're trolling or didn't consider the implications, but I'll bite.
In your scenario, the password is being sent to your university e-mail address. The password being sent is the same as the password for your e-mail.
Therefore, in order to get your reset password, you have to know the password, otherwise you can't get the e-mail.
I would personally love to get a Mac, but they are super-expensive compared to what i can get an x86 one for.
You may be interested in this.
Try this: yahoo! vs. google
Are you sure they're AC signals? I think they're DC. Telephones use DC for the speaker (AC is only used for the ringer), so you'd think home stereos would use the same principle. The speaker vibrates by altering the strength of the signal, not the direction. If the signals are DC, a diode-like cable isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Dual-licensing only works if every person with a copyright interest in the code agrees. In practice, this is extremely difficult unless either the copyright holder doesn't accept outside patches, or requires a transfer of copyright to do so.
From a technical standpoint, it is an incredibly well-done commercial, but yeah, it didn't make me rush to the phone to order DirecTV.
Then they should have no problem putting a public statement on their web site that their patents may be used for any purpose, with the condition that if you sue them (or anybody else?), your license to the patents is void.
I hope one day you and I will be the first two customers in the virtual line of DRM-free iTunes.
(The answers to this post come from the iTunes Terms of Service. Of course, "Apple reserves the right, at any time and from time to time, to update, revise, supplement, and otherwise modify this Agreement," so they can take away any "rights" they've granted you at any time.)
... (iii) preclude access to the Service (or any part thereof).") Note that I don't even have to have done anything wrong; Apple only must "suspect" I did.
So what part of burning the file to CD and ripping it to another player requires Apple's permission?
9b. "Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you."
What part of the DRM is preventing you from putting an excerpt on your web page? Last I checked, you could still burn it to CD, you can still use the digital transfer and you can still use the analogue hole.
What happens when the analog hole is also made illegal? What happens if Apple decides that I'm a copyright infringer and turns off access to my entire playlist? (14a: "If you fail, or Apple suspects that you have failed, to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to...violation of the Usage Rules or any license to the software, Apple, at its sole discretion, without notice to you may:
Oh you mean you can't do it with a specific piece of software or via a specific method that you prefer? Last I looked, that wasn't part of fair use.
I am required to use only their software. 8b: "You will not access the Service by any means other than through software that is provided by Apple for accessing the Service." Since that's the case, if they choose to modify the agreement, I'm stuck, and I can no longer assert my fair use rights.
Just in case you didn't read the above, here's why all of this is unacceptable: "We are altering the deal. Pray we do not alter it any further."
(IANAL)
I believe I have the rights you speak of. Rights (in the United States) come from the Constitution, and laws are supposed to interpret and enforce the Constitution, not limit it.
I hold that the DMCA is unconstitutional because it violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ("[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of...useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors...the exclusive Right to their respective Writings...;"). The "limited Times" is key here. It's there because copyright is supposed to ensure works make it into the public domain after some period of time. That doesn't do us any good if we can't get to them due to DRM.
Of course, since Apple has more money than me, they make the rules, but that's an argument for another day.
(IANAL)
It's a violation of my rights that I can't transfer a 8-track from 8-track player A to 8-track player B without the 8-track manufacturer's permission. It's also a violation of my rights that I can't put a 30-second excerpt of the 8-track on my web page for the purpose of critiquing the singer (a recognized fair use).
I know the AC was being funny, but he has a very valid point. People are not pirating music with PyMusique.
Our friends at the RIAA want to stop the rampant copyright infringement, right? Here's how:
1. Stop suing the people you want as your paying customers.
1a. Stop suing little old ladies that may not be your customers, but generate massive public sympathy when covered in the media.
2. Change iTMS and friends to do digital watermarking, instead of digital restrictions management.
All of a sudden, everybody's happy! The RIAA keeps their income and can still go after the worst copyright infringers (after politely asking them to cease and desist), Apple sells more iPods because people like me are less worried about draconian DRM methods, society gets the fair use rights they are owed, and judges can finally focus on dealing with white collar criminals rather than thousands of 13-year-olds who are nothing but music fans.