Please, pretty please, please come back. EMI loves you. EMI is your friend. We miss you guys! Just another little contract, one short one! Please? Just sign it? Please? Pretty please?
NO.
Ah... that felt SOooo GoooOOd!:D Let me say it again.
I think Sony's failure, among other things, was due to dropping PS2 compatibility. I mean, why buy a PS2 slim when you can buy a PS3 for twice the price? No, thrice... wait... four times - no, make that five...
OK. Make that backwards compatibility, AND the price... AND the wiimote.
OpenISO could just invite the members of ISO and effectively render ISO obsolete. They could abstain to vote on all ISO decisions and do everything through OpenISO. It may take a few million dollars to establish, but I say it's worth it.
This has got me so mad I'm on the edge of becoming vigilante. Sigh. How to cause the greatest economical damage to Microsoft in the smallest timeframe while remaining legal?:-/
There *must* be a way... if anyone finds it, I'm in. In the meantime, please donate money to http://reactos.org/ and to encourage development of ReactOS.
I agree with you. That would be the perfect solution. Unfortunately, with our current governments, implementing those "terrible" measures won't give them any money. So all that we have is to fight on our own. And legally - Blue frog's purpose wasn't DOS attacks, but filling the spammers' forms so their business model wouldn't work anymore.
I remember when we proposed an anonymous P2P system for the anti-spam system "Okopipi" (successor of Blue Frog). We were criticized by saying spammers would use that system to make P2P networks for DNS attacks.
One year later, spammers are ALREADY using a P2P system for such thing, while nobody has the means to counter them.
The lesson: They got ahead of us. It's time we invest in countermeasures of our own, or succumb to the enemy. Because, we're losing.
It won't take long for content providers to work around your workarounds. Furthermore, youtube might ban such kind of workarounds. Worse: They might sue those who implement those ideas under DMCA, because your *explicit* intent is to circumvent copy protection measures. You don't want to appear in Fark news as "dumbass", do you?
You guys need to realize that if your intent is to preserve works of art from censorship, you would use either a darknet, or an Anonymous P2P system. I'm not saying the model works, it was just an idea... (<whisper>however, my sources inform me that there are people working in a revolutionary network which will allow you to run your favorite p2p apps on top of it - and even forums and e-mail. Some parts of it already work, but I won't tell... muahahahahaha!</whisper>) *AHEM* *AHEM* Aaaaaanyway.... (insert angelic smile here)
This can be a great opportunity for content providers to upload commercials to youtube and generate revenue for popular clips, like the good old Bugs Bunny episodes (Little Red Riding Hood is my personal favorite - HEY GRANDMA!). Why? Because in the old TV model, the providers chose the content. In the Youtube model, the viewers choose. In other words, they're more willing to watch a determinate clip and not just get whatever the publisher shoves down their throat.
What am I trying to say? Commercials in copyrighted clips uploaded to youtube will be MUCH MORE effective than commercials in standard TV. Simply because the watcher is 100% decided to watch that clip.
Let's hope the copyright owners choose... <old_crusader>wisely.</old_crusader>
There are a lot of Anime Music Videos in there. I fear the artists (either greedy japanese companies or greedy RIAA members) will want to take them off.
But then again, I haven't RTFA so I don't know WTF is Youtube Filtering:P
Human beings are often poor reporters of their own actions
I find it very interesting that this reflects Microsoft's thinking. "You say no to this update, when you really mean yes", "You don't know what's best for you", "You don't need that feature, trust us".
What is creepier is that this patent application will grant Microsoft the exclusive right to read your brain... at least in the way the patent describes.
Those subsequent downloads would not have happened without her, so she is ultimately responsible for them.
Yes, they would. The downloaders could have simply gotten the files from ANOTHER SOURCE (like an uploader overseas, a bootleg, or in some cases, an original CD). Perhaps Jammie only shared 1 to 10% of each file, while the downloaders got the 90% to 99% from other people. Current filesharing programs ALREADY do that - they download from various sources.
Also, it is the downloaders' choice to keep the files on the shared folder, or to move them to their private collection. Or they could simply not share their folders at all. I'm not sure if Kazaa does this, but most file sharing programs allow you to choose different download and upload directories.
The pirates' intent to share pirated music does not depend on whether they bought it in a CD or just downloaded it. With today's technology, ripping a song is so easy, and most people rip it so they can have it on their iPods. Copying them to a shared folder is as easy than copying them to the iPod.
With this i have proved that:
a) By sharing a folder you only contribute to piracy in a small (perhaps minimal) extent. In other words, you're not completely responsible for the subsequent downloads of music files you have.
And b) The decision to re-share a downloaded file is not yours, but of the people who download from you.
It may be obvious to us, but not to the general population. Remember that this is a ZDNet article. People reading ZDNet are in the majority, Windows users who don't know Microsoft's evil tricks as much as we do. I'm glad that columnists write these articles once in a while, to make people realize Microsoft is not the "quality assured" company they pretend to be.
If we want to evangelize about open source/gnu linux, articles from "relatively neutral" parties such as this one are a very good resource.
Oh, they DID have trust. Back in the MS-DOS days. Then all started, and they became too powerful for anyone (even the government) to do anything about it.
I wonder what would have happened if Digital Research had sued Microsoft (and succeeded) for crippling Windows 3.x if the underlying OS wasn't MS-DOS.
But you know what really screwed everything up? The exclusivity contracts with hardware manufacturers. You know, bundling and all that. Those things must go away, since they keep ruining competition (how can it be possible for a machine with Windows being cheaper than one without it?) Don't you hate hidden taxes?
Slashdot Mirror
NO.
Ah... that felt SOooo GoooOOd!
NO!
I think Sony's failure, among other things, was due to dropping PS2 compatibility. I mean, why buy a PS2 slim when you can buy a PS3 for twice the price? No, thrice... wait... four times - no, make that five...
OK. Make that backwards compatibility, AND the price... AND the wiimote.
OpenISO could just invite the members of ISO and effectively render ISO obsolete. They could abstain to vote on all ISO decisions and do everything through OpenISO. It may take a few million dollars to establish, but I say it's worth it.
This has got me so mad I'm on the edge of becoming vigilante. Sigh. How to cause the greatest economical damage to Microsoft in the smallest timeframe while remaining legal? :-/
There *must* be a way... if anyone finds it, I'm in. In the meantime, please donate money to http://reactos.org/ and to encourage development of ReactOS.
Wow, there's about a dozen of these posts, and THEY'RE ALL FUCKING WRONG! CAN'T YOU READ?
:(
Your powers of observation continue to serve you well. B-)
Mine don't
Very probably it's 16,384, as in 2^14. I'm sure it was a hardcoded limit. So typical, Microsoft... so typical.
I agree with you. That would be the perfect solution. Unfortunately, with our current governments, implementing those "terrible" measures won't give them any money. So all that we have is to fight on our own. And legally - Blue frog's purpose wasn't DOS attacks, but filling the spammers' forms so their business model wouldn't work anymore.
I remember when we proposed an anonymous P2P system for the anti-spam system "Okopipi" (successor of Blue Frog). We were criticized by saying spammers would use that system to make P2P networks for DNS attacks.
One year later, spammers are ALREADY using a P2P system for such thing, while nobody has the means to counter them.
The lesson: They got ahead of us. It's time we invest in countermeasures of our own, or succumb to the enemy. Because, we're losing.
"If AT&T has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear!"
Best. Touché. Ever.
Mod parent insightful, please!
What stops Joe Blogs uploading Spiderman 3
:)
Well, there's no Joe Blogs' Spiderman 3, but there's an indian superman
It won't take long for content providers to work around your workarounds. Furthermore, youtube might ban such kind of workarounds. Worse: They might sue those who implement those ideas under DMCA, because your *explicit* intent is to circumvent copy protection measures. You don't want to appear in Fark news as "dumbass", do you?
You guys need to realize that if your intent is to preserve works of art from censorship, you would use either a darknet, or an Anonymous P2P system. I'm not saying the model works, it was just an idea... (<whisper>however, my sources inform me that there are people working in a revolutionary network which will allow you to run your favorite p2p apps on top of it - and even forums and e-mail. Some parts of it already work, but I won't tell... muahahahahaha!</whisper>)
*AHEM* *AHEM* Aaaaaanyway.... (insert angelic smile here)
This can be a great opportunity for content providers to upload commercials to youtube and generate revenue for popular clips, like the good old Bugs Bunny episodes (Little Red Riding Hood is my personal favorite - HEY GRANDMA!). Why? Because in the old TV model, the providers chose the content. In the Youtube model, the viewers choose. In other words, they're more willing to watch a determinate clip and not just get whatever the publisher shoves down their throat.
What am I trying to say? Commercials in copyrighted clips uploaded to youtube will be MUCH MORE effective than commercials in standard TV. Simply because the watcher is 100% decided to watch that clip.
Let's hope the copyright owners choose... <old_crusader>wisely.</old_crusader>
There are a lot of Anime Music Videos in there. I fear the artists (either greedy japanese companies or greedy RIAA members) will want to take them off.
:P
But then again, I haven't RTFA so I don't know WTF is Youtube Filtering
Schwarzenegger is widely regarded in business circles as savvy and intelligent...
Without mentioning that his brain is a Neural Computah.
I guess the above isn't illegal anymore, right Taco?
Just imagine what happens if Clippy tries to cut and paste your thoughts into the letter.
Before:
"Dear Cindy: I'm afraid this won't work, our differences are too much"
After:
"Dear B**ch: Don't even dream about it, I found a girl who really knows how to- F***! How the heck do I turn this off! Don't"
e-mail sent.
Human beings are often poor reporters of their own actions
I find it very interesting that this reflects Microsoft's thinking. "You say no to this update, when you really mean yes", "You don't know what's best for you", "You don't need that feature, trust us".
What is creepier is that this patent application will grant Microsoft the exclusive right to read your brain... at least in the way the patent describes.
Those subsequent downloads would not have happened without her, so she is ultimately responsible for them.
Yes, they would. The downloaders could have simply gotten the files from ANOTHER SOURCE (like an uploader overseas, a bootleg, or in some cases, an original CD). Perhaps Jammie only shared 1 to 10% of each file, while the downloaders got the 90% to 99% from other people. Current filesharing programs ALREADY do that - they download from various sources.
Also, it is the downloaders' choice to keep the files on the shared folder, or to move them to their private collection. Or they could simply not share their folders at all. I'm not sure if Kazaa does this, but most file sharing programs allow you to choose different download and upload directories.
The pirates' intent to share pirated music does not depend on whether they bought it in a CD or just downloaded it. With today's technology, ripping a song is so easy, and most people rip it so they can have it on their iPods. Copying them to a shared folder is as easy than copying them to the iPod.
With this i have proved that:
a) By sharing a folder you only contribute to piracy in a small (perhaps minimal) extent. In other words, you're not completely responsible for the subsequent downloads of music files you have.
And b) The decision to re-share a downloaded file is not yours, but of the people who download from you.
It may be obvious to us, but not to the general population. Remember that this is a ZDNet article. People reading ZDNet are in the majority, Windows users who don't know Microsoft's evil tricks as much as we do. I'm glad that columnists write these articles once in a while, to make people realize Microsoft is not the "quality assured" company they pretend to be.
If we want to evangelize about open source/gnu linux, articles from "relatively neutral" parties such as this one are a very good resource.
Oh, they DID have trust. Back in the MS-DOS days. Then all started, and they became too powerful for anyone (even the government) to do anything about it.
I wonder what would have happened if Digital Research had sued Microsoft (and succeeded) for crippling Windows 3.x if the underlying OS wasn't MS-DOS.
But you know what really screwed everything up? The exclusivity contracts with hardware manufacturers. You know, bundling and all that. Those things must go away, since they keep ruining competition (how can it be possible for a machine with Windows being cheaper than one without it?) Don't you hate hidden taxes?
"Wii are bored".
It's not one of their patents, and it's a weak claim.
It's called a smoke screen. Anything to give Linux/Redhat bad publicity.
but one of M$ patent people when to IP Innovation on October 1st
Shouldn't that be "went" ? I'm sorry but your grammar makes me sick.
We let too many stupid people vote? Is that what you are saying?
:'(
Unfortunately, it's true. Remember how many votes Bush got in 2004?
Now I wonder how many machines have now been zombified due to Microsoft's "little mistake". :-/
Who's gonna be held accountable for that?
Please post an update saying this story appears to be a fake.