If my car explodes because of a fault in the fuel line at manufacturing, I'm perfectly within my rights to sue that company. If my computer becomes completely unusable because a vulnerability allowed someone to damage it or similar, why shouldn't I sue the publisher of that software? I'd also reserve the right to sue the person that exploited that vulnerability and caused the damage.
That line diffuses your whole arguement. This is not a problem in the computerthat rendered it dangerous without anything happening. A bug or poor security is more akin to saying the car manufacturer used glass windows that it know could be broken, and that caused someone to throw a brick through your windows and hotwire your car. You are comparing a basic flaw in the system (the car) that makes the car dangerous and unusable to a minor flaw that a third party can find a way to exploit. They aren't comparable.
Which once again makes it a stupid user problem. Unless you are running a somewhat recent version of Windows (anything past 98 I believe, but I'm not sure about ME, which no one should be running anyway) there is the option of running as non-admin. If these people run as admin, then it is their own fault. If these same people were running Linux, they would also be running as admin, so the exact same problems would result.
Sobig.F is a good example of how fundamental the problems with Microsoft software is. The changes required to secure (pick one: Windows,IE,Outlook,Exchange,IIS) need to happen at the API layer. Unfortunately, this would take industry-wide support, something not even Microsoft can make happen overnight. It would seem with all the money companies already have invested, there is a lot of corporate inertia to overcome.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are no changes you could make that would stop SoBig from spreading except not allowing users to open attachements. All the crap about "In Linux you have to save the attachment, make it executable, and then run it" is crap, because that is what the users would have done. They WANTED to run the attachment. If it took 2 extra steps, they still would have run the attachment, because that was their intention. SoBig was a user stupidity problem, pure and simple. They wanted to run the attachment and did. Adding 2 more stpes wouldn't have changed that.
Prior to when the current webcaster royalty rates were determined, the RIAA met with Yahoo! to work out rates seperate from those put forth by the Librarian of Congress, or LOC. The LOC, in turn, used the Yahoo! rates as the baseline for a "fair market" royalty value...The lawsuit alleges that the RIAA unfairly inflated the Yahoo! royalties to the point where they would not legitmately be a 'fair market value'...it was price-fixing, with Yahoo! as (possibly) an unsuspecting ally.
If Yahoo was not an ally in this, how could the inflate the prices? They are negotiating with a company about rates. Whatever ends up as the final rate would be a fair market value that both parties agree on unless there was a conspiracy between the 2. Yes, I'm sure the RIAA wanted the highest rates possible, because that is the way business works. Yahoo wanted low rates, the RIAA wanted high rates, and they met in the middle. Seems if there wasn't a conspiracy, there is no validity to the claims at all.
All speech is intellectual property. The minute you say something, it is yours, you have a copyright on it. The difference is what that person decides to do with their intellectual property. If they want to give it away for free, that can. If they want to retain the rights to t and try to sell it, they can. Free speech and intellectual property are not mutually exclusive.
Every few months, someone else comes along and argues that Linux needs ONE desktop interface if it's going to combat windows. Kind of/funny/stupid/, since M$ changes interfaces every couple of years, and touts this as a usability feature (new, improved interface, blah blah blah).
It's kind of a stretch to count the different version of Windows as different interfaces. The interface has been almost exactly the same since Win95, with the changes being fairly minor. But more importantly, at any time you buy windows, you get 1 interface. Everyone purchasing a copy of Windows XP gets the same interface by default. You can changing this interface, but it puts user's at ease to see the same familiar interface when they start the system. Linux could still keep the multitude of GUIs, but it would put less experienced users at ease if they got a default interface no matter what Linux system they logged onto.
its easy to run a script in linux. just not easy to run a script that will do damage to the whole system. Linux doesnt usually run in root and all programs are fine with that. They dont complain about permisisions like windows "limited user" does. That default root is a problem with windows and the people who make the programs available for it.
And how does this say that Windows is insecure? I have yet to have any MS application need root access (unless it is a server apps, which you would expect to need root). If Joe's program wants to be root, it doesn't matter what OS it is on, the program is at fault, not the OS. Saying that Joe programmed his app so that it wants to be root, so the OS is insecure is just silly.
And before someone says it, SoBig does not mean the OS is insecure either. Even if it was harder to run attachments, the users would have run them, because that is what they wanted to do. If the user wants to do something, they will, regardless of whether it is 1 step or 3. If SoBig targetted Linux (and assuming Joe Average used Linux and could even do this stuff), the user would have saved the attachement, marked it executable, and then ran it. That is what they wanted to do, adding steps wouldn't have changed that.
That's funny, at my job we are running relativelysecuresoftware as well. It must be just as secure, since we didn't get hit either. Sure, we got lots of junk email, but since Outlook automatically blocked all the attachments (since they were known, insecure filetypes) we had no problems at all.
I find it amazing these viruses are called Outlook viruses when Outlook is immune to them. They are stupid user viruses, not Outlook viruses.
Except the feature simply makes what the user wants to do easier. The user wants to open the attachment. If they had to go through three steps to open the attachment, they would, because that is what they are trying to do. Three steps versus one ot two steps doesn't matter, because they are the steps the user will take to do what he wants to do.
A better car analogy is that car companies are at fault for drunk drivers because it is too easy to operate a car. They made it as easy as putting the key in the car to start it. It they made 5 additional steps before the car would start, it would stop drunk drivers. In fact it wouldn't stop them (unless one of the steps was a breathalizer). They want to start the car and will, no matter how many steps there are. Users want to open these attachements and will, regardless of whether there is 1 step or 10.
It's akin to regulation of the traveling snake-oil salesman of the nineteenth century. That sort of charlatan is no longer allowed (by law), and the same could happen with strong (and strongly enforced) spam laws.
While I'm no spam fan, it isn't anything like the charlatans of the nineteenth century. They sold a bogus product that did not do as they said it did. Assuming these spams are for real products, that do as they claim they do, there is no comparison. Obviosuly there are some spammers using fraud to make a profit, but I think it is probably less than half.
I find it funny that once again a virus is being blamed on Microsoft. The only way to spread this is to open the attachment and run it. How is Microsoft supposed to stop people from opening attachements? If you use MS Outlook you are actually immune to this virus, as Outlook blocks most executable attachments. Please explain to me why a user running a file (which then opens it's open SMTP server and emails itself to people) is Microsoft's fault? This same thing could happen on Linux, there is nothing stopping a Linux user from running a file attachment. This isn't a MS problem, it is a user education problem.
To show them that there are other options besides Windows.
Except that schools are there to push people's pet causes (or at least shouldn't be). They are there to teach kids useful skills they will use in life. I can understanding pushing for diversified computers. Having some Macs, some Windows, some Linux, etc. That would teach diversity. But having all Macs doesn;t teach diversity anymore than having all WinXP machines would.
If there had been Macs (with OSX) in their high schools, most would probably have been more confident using a shell and in general not so stuck in a Windows frame of mind. If anything, I think high schools should use more Macs. Now that they are BSD based, they are more compatible with real OSs while at the same time being fairly easy for a novice.
If they haven't used the command line in Windows, what makes you think they would use the shell in OSX (which if it is a standard Unix shell is more difficult to learn because of the abbreviations)? The fact is people treat computers like they treat cars. They want them to do what they want and they don't want to have to understand how they do it. The problem is that computers haven't reached the level where this is entirely possible.
I hadn't seen the original report, but as soon as I saw it was funded by MS, I assumed it was marketting fluff and moved on. Now I see that the "rebuttal" is on LinuxDevices.com, and was meant to specifically prove the MS report wrong and that Linux is better. That means it's more marketting fluff so we can move on.
When will people relaize that MS is not the only people putting out biased reports. I put the same faith in a "Linux is great" report by a Linux group as I do in a "Windows is great" report by MS.
Federal court?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be technically a federal subpeona (I assume there is such a thing) since it involves multiple states and interstate operations (i.e. the internet)? With the DMCA being a federal law, and the internet being country-wide (well, world-wide really) why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
> Simple folder naming convention like Program Files, Document > and settings, I must disagree here for three reasons. First, most users don't want to know about the filesystem; they want to open the program they used to create the document and pick the document off an MRU list or maybe hit File->Open and pick it from the default folder (on *nix, hopefully that's ~/). Folder names only matter to power users. Secondly, putting spaces in pathnames breaks all sorts of things. If you want to call the directories "Applications" and "Documents", okay, but please, no spaces, and no "My Foo". Incidentally, there's no reason why/Applications can't be a link to/usr with no changes to any current software. Removing the legacy/usr link however would require ten years of heated argument and twenty years of deprecation, by which time it won't matter. Leave it alone; directly accessing the directory heirarchy is a poweruser task anyway. Just make the end user apps so they don't confuse the user with such details
This is the biggest failure of Linux, it is either for non-computer users or gurus, the power user is often left out. I have many power users who can do a lot under windows without understanding the underlying OS. With Linux, a power user must understand a lot more just to be able to find a file or change simple settings. Linux is extremely hard for someone who knows computers, but not Linux. They either are at the "know nothing" level, or they have to move up to the "understand the OS" level. There isn't a lot of space between "luser" and "guru".
Considering Linux UI is basically a copy of Windows (for the most part) this isn't surprising at all. Take something you know people like and copy it and people will like what you will do. When I boot RH9, it looks like a Windows knock-off, which means any person with Windows experience will have an idea of what to do. That said, it will get them close to being as easy to use as Windows, but always a step behind. Until they start actually innovating UI usability instead of trying to copy what Windows does, it will always be a step behind.
Where Linux really lags behind Windows is 2 areas. Install/uninstall programs and UI conformity. Installing/uninstalling many programs is still a chore. Where does it install? What's this stuff about compiling (if there isn't an RPM). How do I uninstall? And the UI conformity is nonexistant. Almost all Windows programs have the same setup. The menus have the same option in the same places (cut/copy/paste is always under Edit, which is always second from the left on the menu). In Linux, every app has it's own look and feel. Which means most apps have to be completely learned from scratch instead of building on the base. Until Linux overcomes these 2 major hurdles, it will always be 2 steps behind Windows.
While it is true that most DVDs have more features at a lower price than most CDs, that is because a DVD is a second attempt at profit, whereas a CD is the only attempt at profit.
By the time a movie is released on DVD, it has already been released in theatres, which means it has already made a good portion of the money that was spent making it. A movie is made for $100 million dollars, makes $150 million in theatres, they can afford to make the DVD cheaper and sell more.
A CD is the only money making venture involved. They need to recoup all costs of the CD from selling the CD. They can't count on already having made money some other way.
So comparing DVDs and CDs isn't fair. DVDs are trying to make some extra money from a second releasing of the movie, while CDs are trying to simply recoup their losses and make any money at all.
I think the real question is, what does this really buy anyway? I'm sure the RIAA will continue to happily sue college people running big mp3 servers. I don't see how this would change that.
Yes, they would continue to sue them, because this is a seperate system. They are trying to play off the people who claim "if music was available for a reasonable price online, I would pay for it". Well, if you use the universities system (which may appear to be free to you, but still legal) you can still get your music, but legally. IF you continue to use Kazaa to illegally download music, then yes, they can and will still go after you. But if what everyone claims is true (people would pay for music if they could), then this system should shut down Kazaa and others on campus.
The checks and balances are at the subpoena level. Not just "anyone" can subpoena your surfing habits, they need to get a court to agree that you need that info for a legitimate reason (i.e. a lawsuit that they believe has some merit). Once the court has decided the suit has merit, then the subpoena is valid. The problem is not following the subpoena, the problem is that the subpoena may be given to easily.
Also, they are not asking for anything overly broad, such as surfing records. They are asking for the identities of the people. If they were asking for actually records, I would agree with you, but they are trying to identify the individual who they feel are infringing on their rights and the court also thinks may be infringing on their rights. If I get a subpoena from the courts to tell me who owns a phone number because I am getting harrassing calls from it, there is no privacy issue beause they are only giving me the basic information. There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. With privacy, you are still held responsible for your actions (such as being able to be found if someone thinks you are infringing on their rights or committing a crime). With anonymity, you cannot be held responsible for anything and can break laws, infringe on others rights, etc freely because you cannot be found.
Take it away from corps for a second. What if people were sharing your IP on Kazaa. They had a copy of your private journal, with your private pictures (some in compromising positions), and your name, address, etc. Your recourse is to go to the court, get a subpoena to make the ISP reveal who it is. If they don't reveal who it is, you have no other recourse. The other person right to anonymity does not overule your rights. If you can convince a court that there is a good chance your rights are being violated, then they will issue a subpoena. The checks and balances to protect privacy are in the fact you must convince a court that your case has enough merit that you need this information.
While we may disagree with the DMCA, they do have obligations under the law to comply with the subpeona. Frankly, the whole "privacy" issue is a no go with me. If they are violating copyright, it is not a privacy issue. That's like saying that you can't release the info of a scam artists because of privacy issues. If there is a legitimate legal reason for the information to be needed, then it needs to be released. A subpoena says there is a legal need for the information. You can argue the rules of giving out these subpoenas (and I would agree they are given out to easily probably), but saying you can;t honor a subpoena because of "privacy" issues is a no-go. If the court has need of this information, then you need to give it, the privacy matter is moot, because it has been decided there is at least a good chance they have broken the law (even if the law is a crappy one). Fighting the subpoena for "privacy" is the wrong battle.
And why is it not assumed that buymusic.com just wants to make sure everything works correctly on IE before they transfer over to other browsers? They start with the largest market, and once they get everything working the way they want it they then branch out and start adding other browsers.
I'm not saying that is what they are doing, because I don't know. But it seems just as likely as Apple getting everything to work on their system and then rolling out a Windows version later. It could very well be Apple wanted to get more people to buy a Mac to get the "cool new gadget" and once they got everyone they thought they could to switch, they then released a windows version. Apple is not always trying to help you, and other companies are not always out to screw you (although in general, most companies, including Apple, are out to screw you).
This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it. You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.
While I agree with your position (and this same position has been put out by many), I wonder how you feel about spam. It seems the same arguement would apply to spam. You have a public email address, that means anyone can email you, even if you don't ask them to (providing they do not have fake headers, abuse an open relay, etc). Once you put your address on the internet, you know you will get email.
Bad bad analogy? When are people going to stop comparing 1's and 0's on a silver platter to stuff in a store? If I could go in a store, buy a candy bar, take it outside, and put it in a machine that made infinite copies of it for free, the only people that would call it a crime were those that would stand to lose profits because of the world no longer having ANY shortage of food. No one is deprived of anything by sharing files, but lots of people stand to gain from the removal of artificial scarcity. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches 0. There are of course other variables, quality, loyalty, etc, but that's what the IP business is coming down to, practically infinite supply attempting to bolt down the market to ratchet up price.
For someone so intent on using the "correct description" you sure do mess up. Last time I checked, "sharing" involves giving up your physical property to someone else for alimited amount of time, not giving an umlimited amount of people an exact copy of something. Just as "copyright infringement" isn't "theft", it certainly isn't "sharing" either. It is taking the intellectual property of another person and distributing it without their permission.
And might I add that while you claim no one is deprived of anything from sharing files, you state that the only people who would care about you copying a candybar are the people that would stand to lose a profit from it. If people lose profits, it seems they are deprived of something.
The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.
While I agree with you in part (people must not be afraid to speak for free speech to be useful), the flip side of that is that people should be held accountable for what they say and do. There is a difference between being able to say something truthful and being able to tell lies and not be held accountable. Free speech is "free" in that it can't be restrained, not "free" as in there are no consequences. With any liberty comes responsibility, and that is what is removed with complete anonimity. Having freedom without consequences isn't good for anyone, because it then becomes a haven for the abusers and they drown out the true users.
Slashdot Mirror
If my car explodes because of a fault in the fuel line at manufacturing, I'm perfectly within my rights to sue that company. If my computer becomes completely unusable because a vulnerability allowed someone to damage it or similar, why shouldn't I sue the publisher of that software? I'd also reserve the right to sue the person that exploited that vulnerability and caused the damage.
That line diffuses your whole arguement. This is not a problem in the computerthat rendered it dangerous without anything happening. A bug or poor security is more akin to saying the car manufacturer used glass windows that it know could be broken, and that caused someone to throw a brick through your windows and hotwire your car. You are comparing a basic flaw in the system (the car) that makes the car dangerous and unusable to a minor flaw that a third party can find a way to exploit. They aren't comparable.
Which once again makes it a stupid user problem. Unless you are running a somewhat recent version of Windows (anything past 98 I believe, but I'm not sure about ME, which no one should be running anyway) there is the option of running as non-admin. If these people run as admin, then it is their own fault. If these same people were running Linux, they would also be running as admin, so the exact same problems would result.
Sobig.F is a good example of how fundamental the problems with Microsoft software is. The changes required to secure (pick one: Windows,IE,Outlook,Exchange,IIS) need to happen at the API layer. Unfortunately, this would take industry-wide support, something not even Microsoft can make happen overnight. It would seem with all the money companies already have invested, there is a lot of corporate inertia to overcome.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there are no changes you could make that would stop SoBig from spreading except not allowing users to open attachements. All the crap about "In Linux you have to save the attachment, make it executable, and then run it" is crap, because that is what the users would have done. They WANTED to run the attachment. If it took 2 extra steps, they still would have run the attachment, because that was their intention. SoBig was a user stupidity problem, pure and simple. They wanted to run the attachment and did. Adding 2 more stpes wouldn't have changed that.
Prior to when the current webcaster royalty rates were determined, the RIAA met with Yahoo! to work out rates seperate from those put forth by the Librarian of Congress, or LOC. The LOC, in turn, used the Yahoo! rates as the baseline for a "fair market" royalty value...The lawsuit alleges that the RIAA unfairly inflated the Yahoo! royalties to the point where they would not legitmately be a 'fair market value'...it was price-fixing, with Yahoo! as (possibly) an unsuspecting ally.
If Yahoo was not an ally in this, how could the inflate the prices? They are negotiating with a company about rates. Whatever ends up as the final rate would be a fair market value that both parties agree on unless there was a conspiracy between the 2. Yes, I'm sure the RIAA wanted the highest rates possible, because that is the way business works. Yahoo wanted low rates, the RIAA wanted high rates, and they met in the middle. Seems if there wasn't a conspiracy, there is no validity to the claims at all.
All speech is intellectual property. The minute you say something, it is yours, you have a copyright on it. The difference is what that person decides to do with their intellectual property. If they want to give it away for free, that can. If they want to retain the rights to t and try to sell it, they can. Free speech and intellectual property are not mutually exclusive.
Every few months, someone else comes along and argues that Linux needs ONE desktop interface if it's going to combat windows. /funny/stupid/, since M$ changes interfaces every couple of years, and touts this as a usability feature (new, improved interface, blah blah blah).
Kind of
It's kind of a stretch to count the different version of Windows as different interfaces. The interface has been almost exactly the same since Win95, with the changes being fairly minor. But more importantly, at any time you buy windows, you get 1 interface. Everyone purchasing a copy of Windows XP gets the same interface by default. You can changing this interface, but it puts user's at ease to see the same familiar interface when they start the system. Linux could still keep the multitude of GUIs, but it would put less experienced users at ease if they got a default interface no matter what Linux system they logged onto.
its easy to run a script in linux. just not easy to run a script that will do damage to the whole system. Linux doesnt usually run in root and all programs are fine with that. They dont complain about permisisions like windows "limited user" does. That default root is a problem with windows and the people who make the programs available for it.
And how does this say that Windows is insecure? I have yet to have any MS application need root access (unless it is a server apps, which you would expect to need root). If Joe's program wants to be root, it doesn't matter what OS it is on, the program is at fault, not the OS. Saying that Joe programmed his app so that it wants to be root, so the OS is insecure is just silly.
And before someone says it, SoBig does not mean the OS is insecure either. Even if it was harder to run attachments, the users would have run them, because that is what they wanted to do. If the user wants to do something, they will, regardless of whether it is 1 step or 3. If SoBig targetted Linux (and assuming Joe Average used Linux and could even do this stuff), the user would have saved the attachement, marked it executable, and then ran it. That is what they wanted to do, adding steps wouldn't have changed that.
That's funny, at my job we are running relatively secure software as well. It must be just as secure, since we didn't get hit either. Sure, we got lots of junk email, but since Outlook automatically blocked all the attachments (since they were known, insecure filetypes) we had no problems at all.
I find it amazing these viruses are called Outlook viruses when Outlook is immune to them. They are stupid user viruses, not Outlook viruses.
Except the feature simply makes what the user wants to do easier. The user wants to open the attachment. If they had to go through three steps to open the attachment, they would, because that is what they are trying to do. Three steps versus one ot two steps doesn't matter, because they are the steps the user will take to do what he wants to do.
A better car analogy is that car companies are at fault for drunk drivers because it is too easy to operate a car. They made it as easy as putting the key in the car to start it. It they made 5 additional steps before the car would start, it would stop drunk drivers. In fact it wouldn't stop them (unless one of the steps was a breathalizer). They want to start the car and will, no matter how many steps there are. Users want to open these attachements and will, regardless of whether there is 1 step or 10.
It's akin to regulation of the traveling snake-oil salesman of the nineteenth century. That sort of charlatan is no longer allowed (by law), and the same could happen with strong (and strongly enforced) spam laws.
While I'm no spam fan, it isn't anything like the charlatans of the nineteenth century. They sold a bogus product that did not do as they said it did. Assuming these spams are for real products, that do as they claim they do, there is no comparison. Obviosuly there are some spammers using fraud to make a profit, but I think it is probably less than half.
I find it funny that once again a virus is being blamed on Microsoft. The only way to spread this is to open the attachment and run it. How is Microsoft supposed to stop people from opening attachements? If you use MS Outlook you are actually immune to this virus, as Outlook blocks most executable attachments. Please explain to me why a user running a file (which then opens it's open SMTP server and emails itself to people) is Microsoft's fault? This same thing could happen on Linux, there is nothing stopping a Linux user from running a file attachment. This isn't a MS problem, it is a user education problem.
To show them that there are other options besides Windows.
Except that schools are there to push people's pet causes (or at least shouldn't be). They are there to teach kids useful skills they will use in life. I can understanding pushing for diversified computers. Having some Macs, some Windows, some Linux, etc. That would teach diversity. But having all Macs doesn;t teach diversity anymore than having all WinXP machines would.
If there had been Macs (with OSX) in their high schools, most would probably have been more confident using a shell and in general not so stuck in a Windows frame of mind. If anything, I think high schools should use more Macs. Now that they are BSD based, they are more compatible with real OSs while at the same time being fairly easy for a novice.
If they haven't used the command line in Windows, what makes you think they would use the shell in OSX (which if it is a standard Unix shell is more difficult to learn because of the abbreviations)? The fact is people treat computers like they treat cars. They want them to do what they want and they don't want to have to understand how they do it. The problem is that computers haven't reached the level where this is entirely possible.
I hadn't seen the original report, but as soon as I saw it was funded by MS, I assumed it was marketting fluff and moved on. Now I see that the "rebuttal" is on LinuxDevices.com, and was meant to specifically prove the MS report wrong and that Linux is better. That means it's more marketting fluff so we can move on.
When will people relaize that MS is not the only people putting out biased reports. I put the same faith in a "Linux is great" report by a Linux group as I do in a "Windows is great" report by MS.
Maybe I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be technically a federal subpeona (I assume there is such a thing) since it involves multiple states and interstate operations (i.e. the internet)? With the DMCA being a federal law, and the internet being country-wide (well, world-wide really) why would the subpoena not come from a federal court instead of a locality?
> Simple folder naming convention like Program Files, Document /Applications can't be a link to /usr with no /usr
> and settings,
I must disagree here for three reasons. First, most users
don't want to know about the filesystem; they want to open
the program they used to create the document and pick the
document off an MRU list or maybe hit File->Open and pick
it from the default folder (on *nix, hopefully that's ~/).
Folder names only matter to power users. Secondly, putting
spaces in pathnames breaks all sorts of things. If you want
to call the directories "Applications" and "Documents", okay,
but please, no spaces, and no "My Foo". Incidentally, there's
no reason why
changes to any current software. Removing the legacy
link however would require ten years of heated argument and
twenty years of deprecation, by which time it won't matter.
Leave it alone; directly accessing the directory heirarchy
is a poweruser task anyway. Just make the end user apps so
they don't confuse the user with such details
This is the biggest failure of Linux, it is either for non-computer users or gurus, the power user is often left out. I have many power users who can do a lot under windows without understanding the underlying OS. With Linux, a power user must understand a lot more just to be able to find a file or change simple settings. Linux is extremely hard for someone who knows computers, but not Linux. They either are at the "know nothing" level, or they have to move up to the "understand the OS" level. There isn't a lot of space between "luser" and "guru".
Considering Linux UI is basically a copy of Windows (for the most part) this isn't surprising at all. Take something you know people like and copy it and people will like what you will do. When I boot RH9, it looks like a Windows knock-off, which means any person with Windows experience will have an idea of what to do. That said, it will get them close to being as easy to use as Windows, but always a step behind. Until they start actually innovating UI usability instead of trying to copy what Windows does, it will always be a step behind.
Where Linux really lags behind Windows is 2 areas. Install/uninstall programs and UI conformity. Installing/uninstalling many programs is still a chore. Where does it install? What's this stuff about compiling (if there isn't an RPM). How do I uninstall? And the UI conformity is nonexistant. Almost all Windows programs have the same setup. The menus have the same option in the same places (cut/copy/paste is always under Edit, which is always second from the left on the menu). In Linux, every app has it's own look and feel. Which means most apps have to be completely learned from scratch instead of building on the base. Until Linux overcomes these 2 major hurdles, it will always be 2 steps behind Windows.
While it is true that most DVDs have more features at a lower price than most CDs, that is because a DVD is a second attempt at profit, whereas a CD is the only attempt at profit.
By the time a movie is released on DVD, it has already been released in theatres, which means it has already made a good portion of the money that was spent making it. A movie is made for $100 million dollars, makes $150 million in theatres, they can afford to make the DVD cheaper and sell more.
A CD is the only money making venture involved. They need to recoup all costs of the CD from selling the CD. They can't count on already having made money some other way.
So comparing DVDs and CDs isn't fair. DVDs are trying to make some extra money from a second releasing of the movie, while CDs are trying to simply recoup their losses and make any money at all.
I think the real question is, what does this really buy anyway?
I'm sure the RIAA will continue to happily sue college people running big mp3 servers. I don't see how this would change that.
Yes, they would continue to sue them, because this is a seperate system. They are trying to play off the people who claim "if music was available for a reasonable price online, I would pay for it". Well, if you use the universities system (which may appear to be free to you, but still legal) you can still get your music, but legally. IF you continue to use Kazaa to illegally download music, then yes, they can and will still go after you. But if what everyone claims is true (people would pay for music if they could), then this system should shut down Kazaa and others on campus.
The checks and balances are at the subpoena level. Not just "anyone" can subpoena your surfing habits, they need to get a court to agree that you need that info for a legitimate reason (i.e. a lawsuit that they believe has some merit). Once the court has decided the suit has merit, then the subpoena is valid. The problem is not following the subpoena, the problem is that the subpoena may be given to easily.
Also, they are not asking for anything overly broad, such as surfing records. They are asking for the identities of the people. If they were asking for actually records, I would agree with you, but they are trying to identify the individual who they feel are infringing on their rights and the court also thinks may be infringing on their rights. If I get a subpoena from the courts to tell me who owns a phone number because I am getting harrassing calls from it, there is no privacy issue beause they are only giving me the basic information. There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. With privacy, you are still held responsible for your actions (such as being able to be found if someone thinks you are infringing on their rights or committing a crime). With anonymity, you cannot be held responsible for anything and can break laws, infringe on others rights, etc freely because you cannot be found.
Take it away from corps for a second. What if people were sharing your IP on Kazaa. They had a copy of your private journal, with your private pictures (some in compromising positions), and your name, address, etc. Your recourse is to go to the court, get a subpoena to make the ISP reveal who it is. If they don't reveal who it is, you have no other recourse. The other person right to anonymity does not overule your rights. If you can convince a court that there is a good chance your rights are being violated, then they will issue a subpoena. The checks and balances to protect privacy are in the fact you must convince a court that your case has enough merit that you need this information.
While we may disagree with the DMCA, they do have obligations under the law to comply with the subpeona. Frankly, the whole "privacy" issue is a no go with me. If they are violating copyright, it is not a privacy issue. That's like saying that you can't release the info of a scam artists because of privacy issues. If there is a legitimate legal reason for the information to be needed, then it needs to be released. A subpoena says there is a legal need for the information. You can argue the rules of giving out these subpoenas (and I would agree they are given out to easily probably), but saying you can;t honor a subpoena because of "privacy" issues is a no-go. If the court has need of this information, then you need to give it, the privacy matter is moot, because it has been decided there is at least a good chance they have broken the law (even if the law is a crappy one). Fighting the subpoena for "privacy" is the wrong battle.
And why is it not assumed that buymusic.com just wants to make sure everything works correctly on IE before they transfer over to other browsers? They start with the largest market, and once they get everything working the way they want it they then branch out and start adding other browsers.
I'm not saying that is what they are doing, because I don't know. But it seems just as likely as Apple getting everything to work on their system and then rolling out a Windows version later. It could very well be Apple wanted to get more people to buy a Mac to get the "cool new gadget" and once they got everyone they thought they could to switch, they then released a windows version. Apple is not always trying to help you, and other companies are not always out to screw you (although in general, most companies, including Apple, are out to screw you).
This is the only sane argument about this. Laws or court cases against deep linking are moronic. It is a public network. You have advertised an address, and you knew what that meant when you did it.
You are not being co-erced into putting content on the network, and the consequences of putting up content are obvious to all.
While I agree with your position (and this same position has been put out by many), I wonder how you feel about spam. It seems the same arguement would apply to spam. You have a public email address, that means anyone can email you, even if you don't ask them to (providing they do not have fake headers, abuse an open relay, etc). Once you put your address on the internet, you know you will get email.
Bad bad analogy? When are people going to stop comparing 1's and 0's on a silver platter to stuff in a store? If I could go in a store, buy a candy bar, take it outside, and put it in a machine that made infinite copies of it for free, the only people that would call it a crime were those that would stand to lose profits because of the world no longer having ANY shortage of food.
No one is deprived of anything by sharing files, but lots of people stand to gain from the removal of artificial scarcity. As supply approaches infinity, price approaches 0. There are of course other variables, quality, loyalty, etc, but that's what the IP business is coming down to, practically infinite supply attempting to bolt down the market to ratchet up price.
For someone so intent on using the "correct description" you sure do mess up. Last time I checked, "sharing" involves giving up your physical property to someone else for alimited amount of time, not giving an umlimited amount of people an exact copy of something. Just as "copyright infringement" isn't "theft", it certainly isn't "sharing" either. It is taking the intellectual property of another person and distributing it without their permission.
And might I add that while you claim no one is deprived of anything from sharing files, you state that the only people who would care about you copying a candybar are the people that would stand to lose a profit from it. If people lose profits, it seems they are deprived of something.
The fact is, the minute you guarantee anonymity (something which, IMHO, is required for free speech... after all, what's the point of free speech if you're afraid to exercise that right?), people will abuse it. However, if you truly believe in the right to free speech, you must be willing to take the good with the bad. Anyone who suggests anything else doesn't truly believe in free speech.
While I agree with you in part (people must not be afraid to speak for free speech to be useful), the flip side of that is that people should be held accountable for what they say and do. There is a difference between being able to say something truthful and being able to tell lies and not be held accountable. Free speech is "free" in that it can't be restrained, not "free" as in there are no consequences. With any liberty comes responsibility, and that is what is removed with complete anonimity. Having freedom without consequences isn't good for anyone, because it then becomes a haven for the abusers and they drown out the true users.