Because they're breaking the law and the MPAA can sue them. It's a good profit revenue (without having to even make new films that might flop) and while it wouldn't be much, it's guranteed and isn't dependant on box office tickets. Some might even say it's their duty to their shareholders to look for go after any legal means that will help raise profit within an acceptable risk level.
If you're going to download and disseminate content that the copyright holder hasn't allowed you to, expect to be persecuted by the law. You're not activists, you're law breakers. If you have a problem with the law, then do something about it. Don't just hide and hope you won't get caught.
I think this is a perfectly valid use for DRM. It allows libraries to offer digital content, without screwing over the copyright holder. It's not like libraries are able to photocopy entire books and lend them out.
There is no way to be able to force people to delete it on their computer except via DRM. People who use this content, AREN'T paying for it (at least in most public libraries), and while it's most likely very easy to break the DRM, the library isn't forced to enforce their DRM, their responsibility (and liability) stop at placing the DRM onto the content. Unlike commercial copyright distributors, they don't need to make it more convoluted with a harder system to stop people from breaking the DRM.
It's unfortunate that a Microsoft DRM is being used (as I assume it can only be played on Microsoft systems), but it's most likely the easiest and most well known DRM to the people that put the DRM on the content (and the library staff can most likely offer trouble-shooting help with it as a result).
The bu^H^Hfeature is that you no longer get^H^H^Hneed to know where your files are.
One of these days they're going to invent an operating system that recognises the Backspace button. The possibilities will be endless! They might even have cars that run on electricity in that future age.
However, the trouble is that some commercial entity will inevitably pick up the artist's work and use it for making money, exploiting the fact that the work is not protected by copyright. Surely an artist who donates his work to the public without any expectation of compensation does not intend for someone else to profit off of his work.
This is why there are non-commercial licenses such as this one.
Definitely not. Companies only began talking about RFID for products once the patent ran out. Aaah yes, the patent system securing innovation for America.
In that case you may want to try MSN. It allows non-hotmail e-mail addresses (in fact, it allowed invalid e-mail addresses, or at least did back in 2000).
Despite all their self-congratulation about open communications they've only embraced the smaller, less important aspect of the Jabber openness.
Of course it is, Google has stocks now, things have changed, along with Google. You shouldn't act so surprised, what with everyone here saying Google will change once it offers stock.
the last thing I need is another thing to expedite my trip through life.
Whatever speeds up my time in a store is fine by me (unless of course it has a side-effect of killing children, I guess that would be bad... depending which children). I don't know about you, but going shopping isn't my idea of fun, and it has nothing to do with human contact (now if there was naked contact with pretty women at the stores, I wouldn't be in such a rush).
You might enjoy low-grade quality contact with humans, but for me, the less time wasted on low-grade contact, the more time for high-grade contact.
People are going to say that it's possible that global warming isn't a result of us humans and that it's a natural cycle of the planet. You're right, it might be a natural cycle of the planet, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Nature has killed off 90% of the ecosystem in the past (Permian to Triassic period). That aint exactly a good thing people.
And even though there's the possiblity (I won't go into how likely it is) that it's natural, shouldn't we do our best to counteract it's effects as much as possible? Even if it is natural? Because if it isn't, we might have a really big problem on our hands.
Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.
Quite so, quite so. So why don't we save the villification until such time as they actually transgress? Just for a change.
Well I did say if. For the coders who have difficult with English:
IF (google.reason-they-want-fiber-optic=="Internet2") THEN
Google.status = "evil"
ELSE
do nothing
END IF
As you can see, I only "villified" google under a very specific condition, and didn't say that condition was true;)
Of course it is. After all, Google does no evil [/sarcasm]
If this is truly the purpose they have for the fiber optic, they have truly taken Microsoft's "embrace and extend" to a whole new level (and would officially be evil, let the google apologists begin).
Having said that, this is all speculation on why they want the fiber optic, it could just be they want to open up an ISP or to create an intranet only for their own data centers (and not for the public).
If Linux were to fall out of trademark protection, there would be nothing to prevent unauthorised, shady and unscrupulous individuals and organisations from using the term for cheap knock-offs, cashing in on the name or other products which harm the reputation of Linux, and by association, ourselves.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution..... as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark? [sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely. Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
Sheeesh, is a little professionality* too much to ask for? I guess perhaps they should recode their webpage. Although of course they have the advertisements working perfectly.
Chekov isn't being paid, and no-one is paying the guys making the "series" so it should be as safe as possible (with fan-fiction friendly Paramount). Could they, in the future, be sued? Possibly, but Paramount is obviously aware of them, and hasn't told them to stop (and may have given them the okay).
Ron Moore of Battlestar Galactica said on his blog that with Star Trek: Enterprise cancelled and no plans on any future series or movies, that Star Trek had returned once more to its fans. I can understand now what he meant. Back when TOS was cancelled, fan run magazines popped up with fan fiction. Now, in the 21st century, the same thing is happening, only it's changed along with the technology we now have access to. And I can't think of any better hands for Star Trek to be in at the moment, then its fans.
Installation takes very little time - even if you don't know what you're doing you can have Linux up and running in a couple of hours. So, do a couple of hours work installing Linux and then have a breeze for the next 12 months, or have a breeze installing Windows and then spend 12 months with the world of pain that is Windows use.
Choose whichever you want.
You sir, are the definition of a zealot. I said in my post I have had difficulty installing it at least once. You quoted me saying that. And then said that I can have it up and running in a couple of hours and it will be a breeze for 12 months. Well I've certainly spent more then "a couple of hours" and have yet to have "a breeze" with it for any amount of time (installation difficulty one time, network one time, can't remember the problem the third time). But I don't know why I bothered retyping this, as you didn't listen the first time.
Well, then the music industry just lost another customer...
Pffft, they don't care about you. You're most likely too educated for them anyway. They want impulse buyers, not those who actually care about copyright. Their war on p2p is merely:
1. another revenue source, or
2. a publicity stunt, or
3. a lever to pressure their congressmen into creating more draconian laws, or
4. to reduce the "cool" effect (with questionable success) of p2p, or
5. an effort to shame some downloaders into buying the music they've illegally downloaded, or
6. two or more of the above.
That's the American capitalist economy. A company can't simply make a profit, they must make a growing profit. I'd say this is a new trend, but I don't know if it is. I can say though, that's it's a bad trend, and will eventually explode in companies' faces.
Great way for the labels and Apple to discourage people from using legal methods for downloading music.
How is Apple to blame? According to the article summary (can't see actual article) Apple is fighting to protect it's current model, and may be forced to (or to lose a large chunk of it's inventory). I'd hardly say Apple is to blame for that.
Slashdot Mirror
The slashdot summary says Australian scientists
No, the slashdot title sayd Australian science, while the summary says Australiam scientists.
Obviously this was a New Zealander who submitted this, pretending to be an Australian to make us all look stupid.
Why are they suing bitorrent users then?
Because they're breaking the law and the MPAA can sue them. It's a good profit revenue (without having to even make new films that might flop) and while it wouldn't be much, it's guranteed and isn't dependant on box office tickets. Some might even say it's their duty to their shareholders to look for go after any legal means that will help raise profit within an acceptable risk level.
If you're going to download and disseminate content that the copyright holder hasn't allowed you to, expect to be persecuted by the law. You're not activists, you're law breakers. If you have a problem with the law, then do something about it. Don't just hide and hope you won't get caught.
How is this any different from other applications of DRM (assuming they don't conflict with fair use)???
Because most of the time they DO conflict with fair use (and with being able to use a product you actually bought).
I think this is a perfectly valid use for DRM. It allows libraries to offer digital content, without screwing over the copyright holder. It's not like libraries are able to photocopy entire books and lend them out.
There is no way to be able to force people to delete it on their computer except via DRM. People who use this content, AREN'T paying for it (at least in most public libraries), and while it's most likely very easy to break the DRM, the library isn't forced to enforce their DRM, their responsibility (and liability) stop at placing the DRM onto the content. Unlike commercial copyright distributors, they don't need to make it more convoluted with a harder system to stop people from breaking the DRM.
It's unfortunate that a Microsoft DRM is being used (as I assume it can only be played on Microsoft systems), but it's most likely the easiest and most well known DRM to the people that put the DRM on the content (and the library staff can most likely offer trouble-shooting help with it as a result).
The bu^H^Hfeature is that you no longer get^H^H^Hneed to know where your files are.
One of these days they're going to invent an operating system that recognises the Backspace button. The possibilities will be endless! They might even have cars that run on electricity in that future age.
2) Release an add-on with "BETA" in the title
Works for Google.
However, the trouble is that some commercial entity will inevitably pick up the artist's work and use it for making money, exploiting the fact that the work is not protected by copyright. Surely an artist who donates his work to the public without any expectation of compensation does not intend for someone else to profit off of his work.
This is why there are non-commercial licenses such as this one.
Aaah yes. Slashdot, infringing people's copyright since 1997. It's Livejournal. It won't get slashdotted.
RFID is nothing new
Definitely not. Companies only began talking about RFID for products once the patent ran out. Aaah yes, the patent system securing innovation for America.
In that case you may want to try MSN. It allows non-hotmail e-mail addresses (in fact, it allowed invalid e-mail addresses, or at least did back in 2000).
Despite all their self-congratulation about open communications they've only embraced the smaller, less important aspect of the Jabber openness.
Of course it is, Google has stocks now, things have changed, along with Google. You shouldn't act so surprised, what with everyone here saying Google will change once it offers stock.
the last thing I need is another thing to expedite my trip through life.
Whatever speeds up my time in a store is fine by me (unless of course it has a side-effect of killing children, I guess that would be bad... depending which children). I don't know about you, but going shopping isn't my idea of fun, and it has nothing to do with human contact (now if there was naked contact with pretty women at the stores, I wouldn't be in such a rush).
You might enjoy low-grade quality contact with humans, but for me, the less time wasted on low-grade contact, the more time for high-grade contact.
People are going to say that it's possible that global warming isn't a result of us humans and that it's a natural cycle of the planet. You're right, it might be a natural cycle of the planet, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Nature has killed off 90% of the ecosystem in the past (Permian to Triassic period). That aint exactly a good thing people.
And even though there's the possiblity (I won't go into how likely it is) that it's natural, shouldn't we do our best to counteract it's effects as much as possible? Even if it is natural? Because if it isn't, we might have a really big problem on our hands.
Or we can play the blame game, and argue whether it's man's fault or nature's fault, and possibly not pass on a liveable planet to our future children.
Quite so, quite so. So why don't we save the villification until such time as they actually transgress? Just for a change.
) THEN ;)
Well I did say if. For the coders who have difficult with English: IF (google.reason-they-want-fiber-optic=="Internet2"
Google.status = "evil"
ELSE
do nothing
END IF
As you can see, I only "villified" google under a very specific condition, and didn't say that condition was true
Of course it is. After all, Google does no evil [/sarcasm] If this is truly the purpose they have for the fiber optic, they have truly taken Microsoft's "embrace and extend" to a whole new level (and would officially be evil, let the google apologists begin). Having said that, this is all speculation on why they want the fiber optic, it could just be they want to open up an ISP or to create an intranet only for their own data centers (and not for the public).
If Linux were to fall out of trademark protection, there would be nothing to prevent unauthorised, shady and unscrupulous individuals and organisations from using the term for cheap knock-offs, cashing in on the name or other products which harm the reputation of Linux, and by association, ourselves.
So Linux is open for modification and distribution..... as long as Linus feels that you aren't harming his trademark? [sarcasm] Wow, that's certainly open.[/sarcasm]
I guess with Linux's userbase (both corporate and private) continuing to grow, Linus (or at least a lawyer working on his behalf) feels that perhaps they need to begin regulating Linux a bit more closely. Perhaps they will slowly begin to make it not-quite-so-open as well.
Sheeesh, is a little professionality* too much to ask for? I guess perhaps they should recode their webpage. Although of course they have the advertisements working perfectly.
* Yes, I'm aware this isn't an actual word.
Chekov isn't being paid, and no-one is paying the guys making the "series" so it should be as safe as possible (with fan-fiction friendly Paramount). Could they, in the future, be sued? Possibly, but Paramount is obviously aware of them, and hasn't told them to stop (and may have given them the okay).
Ron Moore of Battlestar Galactica said on his blog that with Star Trek: Enterprise cancelled and no plans on any future series or movies, that Star Trek had returned once more to its fans. I can understand now what he meant. Back when TOS was cancelled, fan run magazines popped up with fan fiction. Now, in the 21st century, the same thing is happening, only it's changed along with the technology we now have access to. And I can't think of any better hands for Star Trek to be in at the moment, then its fans.
Installation takes very little time - even if you don't know what you're doing you can have Linux up and running in a couple of hours. So, do a couple of hours work installing Linux and then have a breeze for the next 12 months, or have a breeze installing Windows and then spend 12 months with the world of pain that is Windows use.
Choose whichever you want.
You sir, are the definition of a zealot. I said in my post I have had difficulty installing it at least once. You quoted me saying that. And then said that I can have it up and running in a couple of hours and it will be a breeze for 12 months. Well I've certainly spent more then "a couple of hours" and have yet to have "a breeze" with it for any amount of time (installation difficulty one time, network one time, can't remember the problem the third time). But I don't know why I bothered retyping this, as you didn't listen the first time.
It doesn't make sense to charge $.99 for John Cage's completely silent piece. Apple is making a step in the right direction.
It makes plenty of sense if people will buy it. What might not make sense is people spending $.99 for the piece.
Well, then the music industry just lost another customer...
Pffft, they don't care about you. You're most likely too educated for them anyway. They want impulse buyers, not those who actually care about copyright. Their war on p2p is merely: 1. another revenue source, or
2. a publicity stunt, or
3. a lever to pressure their congressmen into creating more draconian laws, or
4. to reduce the "cool" effect (with questionable success) of p2p, or
5. an effort to shame some downloaders into buying the music they've illegally downloaded, or
6. two or more of the above.
That's the American capitalist economy. A company can't simply make a profit, they must make a growing profit. I'd say this is a new trend, but I don't know if it is. I can say though, that's it's a bad trend, and will eventually explode in companies' faces.
Great way for the labels and Apple to discourage people from using legal methods for downloading music.
How is Apple to blame? According to the article summary (can't see actual article) Apple is fighting to protect it's current model, and may be forced to (or to lose a large chunk of it's inventory). I'd hardly say Apple is to blame for that.
Actually it may just re-inforce the "Oh it's more expensive so it must be better" meme people have in their heads.