'What Verizon is arguing is that it's okay to break ANY law as long as only "speech" is involved'
In this they are just borrowing a page from our distinguished gentlepersons in the administration, who feel that breaking ANY law is fine if you're working on the whole terrorism problem.
If so, that's news to me. I've refused to be an iTunes patron because you are actually just "licensing" the things you get there. The difference is *huge.
Just 'cause it doesn't have DRM doesn't mean that Apple isn't managing digital restrictions via EULA...
I take no end of grief for being (evidently) the only one in the county who doesn't yet have a cellphone. Fact is that being reachable at all times isn't real important to me. I know cells have an off switch, but people get offended if you use them as much as I likely would.
unless Gonzalez certifies that your sharing it "is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack"
You remember Gonzalez, right?
Here's Michael Ripley from back before AACS was finished.
"Backers of the protection method are betting that AACS technology will finally thwart unauthorized copying of DVDs while allowing consumers to distribute movies legitimately over networks within their homes, play them on a variety of devices (standard televisions, portable movie players, and laptop computers), and store them on home media servers. "We wouldn't be investing our time otherwise," says Michael Ripley, the chairman of the AACS alliance's technical working group."
Well, Michael(s): any high school student could've told you this would never work. The reason is the same as always: you have to provide the machine with everything it needs to play back the disc. It's difficult (college students would say "impossible") to provide those things to the machine without providing those things to the machine. Cf. Cory's age-old piece; http://craphound.com/hpdrm.txt
You just got a bad transmission. I believe the full quote was
"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss how much they love copy protection, and how good we are at building it. We respect free speech."
Surely that's what he meant to say. Otherwise he'd be some kind of idiot.
This "access control" thing causes me some concerns. Specifically, it looks as though my software "CoolestWebSearch Dot Pr0n!" might not have access to all the sysytem resources it needs to do all the great things that it does. Have you considered this when designing your system? How do I get the correct behavior (allow all pieces of software to run basically in kernel space) back?
My point is that Joe doesn't need the Genuine Areo Experience(TM) to check his email, and he knows this. If he's aware that there's a $400 computer that can do what his last $400 computer does, he's going to consider it. I'm talking about a lower-spec machine than the Vista Ready one.
If he's nervous about this "ubuntu" thingy he might opt for the support contract
"Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on?"
Do you honestly that Joe is going to opt for the $800 "vista ready" computer when it looks as though the $500 "ubuntu loaded" one is right next to it on the virtual shelf?
PS, Joe: you don't have to pony up another $200 for Office, either.
Over 90% of software innovations are incremental steps on the existing set of best practices and commonly-used abstractions. If this base is screwed up by a bunch of patents, they defeat their purpose and hamper, rather than encourage, innovation.
If you live in America, you won't have to go far for an example. If you live elsewhere, then go to America and then you won't have to go far for an example.
I have sent a note to SoundExchange to confirm this. Their FAQ and other online documentation need -- in my opinion -- to make it more clear that they're only talking about "All Rights Reserved" type music.
And please do. I haven't looked at it in legalistic detail, but if the gist of it is:
I write a couple hundred songs. I run a web radio site and broadcast these. The U.S. Copyright Office authorizes SoundExchange to collect royalties on my "use" of these songs. I therefore owe SoundExchange royalties for the "compulsory license" to broadcast.
What has occurred somewhere (IMO at the Copyright office) is called "slander of copyright title". As the holder of copyright in these works, *I am the one who authorizes their licensing, and if another party does so they are breaking the law.
I believe I also read somewhere that there is going to be a compulsory license for written works as well as musical ones. WordExchange will be authorized by the copyright office to collect royalties on any text that appears on the internet (e.g. blogs and stuff).
(k, this is obv a joke but if you believed it even for a fraction of a second what does that tell you about America?)
"Buy an Apple PC and you can be confident of safety. It ships with all communication ports closed. Native services such as FTP access, remote login and printer sharing are all switched off by default so the chances of a hacker attack are minimal to say the least. Even without all this *fancy *protection, nobody's bothering to make viruses for Macs anyway," [emphasis added]
If closing ports to incoming traffic is "fancy" then, um... I can't think of a funny way to finish that.
Is it fancy to, um... *not walk around dark alleys at night with no pants on?
That it required two very large combined communities to refute this sham expert. Still, that makes me hopefuly that mechanisms like this might rescue part of our judicial system from the money game.
The bot problem is easily solved by buying the latest and greatest version of windows, plus the new hardware that is required to run it. And possibly a subscription to Genuine(R) MS NoMoreBot(TM). Near as I can tell, the bot problem drives sales.
Slashdot Mirror
'What Verizon is arguing is that it's okay to break ANY law as long as only "speech" is involved'
In this they are just borrowing a page from our distinguished gentlepersons in the administration, who feel that breaking ANY law is fine if you're working on the whole terrorism problem.
If so, that's news to me. I've refused to be an iTunes patron because you are actually just "licensing" the things you get there. The difference is *huge.
Just 'cause it doesn't have DRM doesn't mean that Apple isn't managing digital restrictions via EULA...
dum dee dum
I take no end of grief for being (evidently) the only one in the county who doesn't yet have a cellphone. Fact is that being reachable at all times isn't real important to me. I know cells have an off switch, but people get offended if you use them as much as I likely would.
unless Gonzalez certifies that your sharing it "is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack" You remember Gonzalez, right?
Here's Michael Ripley from back before AACS was finished.
"Backers of the protection method are betting that AACS technology will finally thwart unauthorized copying of DVDs while allowing consumers to distribute movies legitimately over networks within their homes, play them on a variety of devices (standard televisions, portable movie players, and laptop computers), and store them on home media servers. "We wouldn't be investing our time otherwise," says Michael Ripley, the chairman of the AACS alliance's technical working group."
Well, Michael(s): any high school student could've told you this would never work. The reason is the same as always: you have to provide the machine with everything it needs to play back the disc. It's difficult (college students would say "impossible") to provide those things to the machine without providing those things to the machine. Cf. Cory's age-old piece;
http://craphound.com/hpdrm.txt
You just got a bad transmission. I believe the full quote was
"There is no intent from us to interfere with people's right to discuss how much they love copy protection, and how good we are at building it. We respect free speech."
Surely that's what he meant to say. Otherwise he'd be some kind of idiot.
As if those independent pirate-friendly artists could ever concoct music as brilliant as K-Fed's "Playing with Fire"
Seems like a serious enough problem that you'd want to expose the judge in question and get himher removed from power.
I'm proud of it, at least.
http://a4fs.net/img/lol.htm
(look at the "recommends" area)
... on your way to go re-elect Nixon
This "access control" thing causes me some concerns. Specifically, it looks as though my software "CoolestWebSearch Dot Pr0n!" might not have access to all the sysytem resources it needs to do all the great things that it does. Have you considered this when designing your system? How do I get the correct behavior (allow all pieces of software to run basically in kernel space) back?
To you and a couple of the other repliers:
My point is that Joe doesn't need the Genuine Areo Experience(TM) to check his email, and he knows this. If he's aware that there's a $400 computer that can do what his last $400 computer does, he's going to consider it. I'm talking about a lower-spec machine than the Vista Ready one.
If he's nervous about this "ubuntu" thingy he might opt for the support contract
"Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on?"
Do you honestly that Joe is going to opt for the $800 "vista ready" computer when it looks as though the $500 "ubuntu loaded" one is right next to it on the virtual shelf?
PS, Joe: you don't have to pony up another $200 for Office, either.
Over 90% of software innovations are incremental steps on the existing set of best practices and commonly-used abstractions. If this base is screwed up by a bunch of patents, they defeat their purpose and hamper, rather than encourage, innovation.
If you live in America, you won't have to go far for an example. If you live elsewhere, then go to America and then you won't have to go far for an example.
Stop allowing patents on what is *obviously not patentable, e.g. mathematical algorithms and software
I have sent a note to SoundExchange to confirm this. Their FAQ and other online documentation need -- in my opinion -- to make it more clear that they're only talking about "All Rights Reserved" type music.
And please do. I haven't looked at it in legalistic detail, but if the gist of it is:
I write a couple hundred songs.
I run a web radio site and broadcast these.
The U.S. Copyright Office authorizes SoundExchange to collect royalties on my "use" of these songs.
I therefore owe SoundExchange royalties for the "compulsory license" to broadcast.
What has occurred somewhere (IMO at the Copyright office) is called "slander of copyright title". As the holder of copyright in these works, *I am the one who authorizes their licensing, and if another party does so they are breaking the law.
I believe I also read somewhere that there is going to be a compulsory license for written works as well as musical ones. WordExchange will be authorized by the copyright office to collect royalties on any text that appears on the internet (e.g. blogs and stuff).
(k, this is obv a joke but if you believed it even for a fraction of a second what does that tell you about America?)
I read the summary. How do you think I knew there were too many links in it?
For Performance
"We can find a winner even without resorting to talk of clock cycles and gigaflops."
*sigh. What has happened to journalism? CNET is a pretty well-respected outlet.
Can you find a presidential election winner without resorting to talk of votes and electoral colleges? (Dieblod, put your hand down!)
I like this one:
... *not walk around dark alleys at night with no pants on?
"Buy an Apple PC and you can be confident of safety. It ships with all communication ports closed. Native services such as FTP access, remote login and printer sharing are all switched off by default so the chances of a hacker attack are minimal to say the least. Even without all this *fancy *protection, nobody's bothering to make viruses for Macs anyway,"
[emphasis added]
If closing ports to incoming traffic is "fancy" then, um... I can't think of a funny way to finish that.
Is it fancy to, um
That it required two very large combined communities to refute this sham expert. Still, that makes me hopefuly that mechanisms like this might rescue part of our judicial system from the money game.
Could T real FA please stand up?
The bot problem is easily solved by buying the latest and greatest version of windows, plus the new hardware that is required to run it. And possibly a subscription to Genuine(R) MS NoMoreBot(TM). Near as I can tell, the bot problem drives sales.