As usual, the post kind of misrepresents what the article is about... but that's just standard/.
I think they are being reasonable, if a bit silly. The contest-winning Coke cans (which are clearly visually distinct from a standard Coke can) have an integrated cell phone and GPS device. About this, the spokesperson was quoted as saying "In the remote possibility a can were found in one of these [secured] areas, we'd make sure the can wasn't activated, try to return it to its original owner and ask that they activate it at home..."
Why is this unreasonable? It's funny, sure... but not the example of misguided paranoia that it's made out to be.
I'd like to ammend my comment: they should be able to place ads in the form of songs, but these placement should NOT count as plays from the standpoint of rankings.
I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download? If the Mattress Superstore down the street can buy ad time on the radio, why not record labels? I'd rather listen to a 5 minute Avril Lavigne song than 5 more minutes of ads (although it is a pretty close call.)
I understand why traditional payola is verbotten, but this seems like a legitimate ad placement. Indeed, given how inexpensive radio advertising is at the local level (outside of drive time) I'm surprised small local bands haven't already grabbed onto this idea.
I know the RIAA and such is evil, but come on... as my grandfather used to say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Would you like to provide some evidence of this? I haven't heard of a successful crack. If there is one, I'd like to know about it.
There are a lot of people out there (I'm one of them) that have a bunch of DRM-enabled WMA's on their hard drives that we'd like to be able to listen to on our iPods... but we can't because nobody has cracked the DRM. If there's been a crack available for 2 years I think that word would have gotten out that a solution exists.
I'm seeing a lot of "if it is digital it can be copied" and "any form of DRM/Copy Protection will be cracked within 10 minutes of release."
While this is true of Apple's DRM scheme, and any copy protection scheme that is even remotely compatible with REDBOOK (i.e. they are severely hobbled by what they can do within the constraints of backwards compatibility with existing players) I have to provide a counter argument:
Nobody has successfuly cracked Microsoft's DRM. Apple's DRM was cracked in mere days, but Microsoft's solution has existed for a couple years now without a successful crack.
Does this mean that an individual writing code would now get sued by the SCOs of the world instead of companies that deploy Linux? Is this a good thing?
If enough people voice their oppion about a "bad" show, then the network will listen and replace it with something else.
No, that's completely wrong. If a show doesn't get ratings or produce sufficient revanues then the show will get cancelled. Sending a thousand letters to the network with your opinion about a bad show will make ZERO difference. (Although sending letters to a show's ADVERTISERS can make a difference, since that can impact revanues.)
You forget that it is about MONEY, not about making quality programming. You have to remember that YOU are not the network's customer-- the advertisers are.
News flash: If Enterprise gets cancelled the money is more likely to be funnelled into "Who wants to marry a one-legged garbage man with a severe flattulence problem" than another sci-fi show.
Fair enough. However, I have less time feeling sorry for (starring) actors in that scenario, as their payrate more than compensates for the precarious nature of their employment status.
First of all, I don't accept the premise that Enterprise is crap. I don't think it is nearly as good as TNG, but I also don't think it is any worse than Voyager. However, there are people that really like the show.
Also, it is a fairly safe assumption that if Enterprise gets canned that it could be over for Star Trek... which would be devistating to a lot of people.
I'm just saying that it is lame to root for someone to lose. If the show stays on the air BECAUSE PEOPLE WATCH IT (the ratings aren't very good, but they aren't horrible) AND BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO SAVE IT (there was a massive letter writing campaign) then why should you WANT IT TO GET CANCELLED? Because you think that the franchise will improve as a result? I've got news for you: that's not how Paramount will look at things. Whenever someone says "Hey! Let's do another Star Trek show/movie/etc" Paramount will say "Nope. Enterprise bombed, we're not going to do another one."
I doubt that's true: I would venture a guess that it takes at least twice as many people (and 5 times as much money, which goes into the economy through special effects shops, etc.) to make an episode of Enterprise than it does to make an episode of "Who Wants to Marry a One-legged Garbage man with a Flattulance problem?"
Well, this is good news. Enterprise is not my favorite flavor of Trek, but it's better than nothing. Besides, there have been a couple good episodes this season.
I'm sure some people would have revelled in an Enterprise cancellation... to them, I'd like to pose a question which always bugged me: if you don't like a show, you don't watch it, right? If you don't watch it why would it matter to you whether or not it is cancelled? It just seems so mean-spirited to wish for a show's cancellation-- over a hundred people lose their jobs as a result, and I'm not talking about high-paid actors, I'm talking about camera men, editors, janitors-- normal people. It's not fun losing a job, folks.
QUOTE:"A similar issue was covered by the Slashdot story Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case on the right to reverse engineer to create an interoperable network. Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue at question here is not whether or not it is legal to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and create an interoperable network, but rather the right to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and provide unlicensed access to the existing network. A subtle, but important distinction.
To draw an analogy, if I create a network of systems that does something, then (as I understand it) it is perfectly legal for you to reverse engineer my methodology and create a competing network that works in a similar way (within the constraints of patents, of course... and the act of reverse engineering something legally is a fairly complex one.) However, it would NOT (nessesarily, depending on the access license for my network) be legal for you to reverse-engineer an unlicensed client that accesses my network. In other words, it's not the act of reverse engineering that's illegal, but rather connecting your client to MY network.
However, in the case of a pure P2P system, I'm not sure that argument will hold up. This would have been an interesting one to watch. Too bad KCEasy backed down so easily.
Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right. Free speech is a right. Free press is a right. Reverse engineering (within certain constraints) is simply legal.
"Sun has always been like this. They have no real interest in open source as an ideal, or Linux as anything other than a means of marketing leverage. And lets' be honest, they've openly said as much for quite some time."
Fair enough. Can we out-polite each other any more?:)
My point is this: Most people think Java is Open Source, and that (over time) dillutes the meaning of Open Source and gives Sun undue credit.
Your point is that most people equate Open Source with the availability of source code for READING as opposed to any specific licensing clause... I agree, but I think we're saying the same thing.
I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology... it's not. Is it a good, elegant language? Yes. Is it Open? No. Downloadable source code does not make Open software-- the key is in the licensing. IBM gets Open Source a lot more than Sun does, but doesn't get nearly as much credit.
I totally agree with the notion that the Java Desktop (which IS basically a Linux distro) doesn't sufficiently acknowledge its Linux roots. I also think that their licensing of the Java Desktop is WAY too restrictive and closed to fit within the constraints imposed by the GNU-licensed technologies that are part of it. I just don't understand why people are surprised. Why would you expect them to do anything differently than they have in the past? They make pretty good stuff... but to pretend like they are an Open Source advocate is a mistake.
Of course, with that said, Sun has an army of lawyers... I'm sure they are not technically violating the GNU. They know better.
I've met Chris a number of times... he's a real stand-up guy with a good head on his shoulders. If Microsoft had more like him they would probably be very successful... no, wait...
I rather like Microsoft's newfound interest in what they call "transparancy." I think that the blogging trend inside MS is a good thing-- it is surprising how little the company curtails the content on their employee's blogs.
I'd have to say Office 2003, Dreamweaver MX, and Photoshop, and VisualStudio.NET because I use them for work... followed by Mozilla and iTunes because I love them... Finally, NewsGator because I can't live without it.
Slashdot Mirror
As usual, the post kind of misrepresents what the article is about... but that's just standard /.
I think they are being reasonable, if a bit silly. The contest-winning Coke cans (which are clearly visually distinct from a standard Coke can) have an integrated cell phone and GPS device. About this, the spokesperson was quoted as saying "In the remote possibility a can were found in one of these [secured] areas, we'd make sure the can wasn't activated, try to return it to its original owner and ask that they activate it at home..."
Why is this unreasonable? It's funny, sure... but not the example of misguided paranoia that it's made out to be.
Fair enough... but do you understand how cheap radio ads are during off-peak hours? We're talking like $5-10 per minute or less.
Heck... you can even get ads played on major cable networks-- CNN, Spike, etc. during off hours for prices in the $5 range...
Here's an article about it.
I'd like to ammend my comment: they should be able to place ads in the form of songs, but these placement should NOT count as plays from the standpoint of rankings.
I'm sure this will get modded down as flamebait... but isn't this just an effective form of advertisement for the record or digital download? If the Mattress Superstore down the street can buy ad time on the radio, why not record labels? I'd rather listen to a 5 minute Avril Lavigne song than 5 more minutes of ads (although it is a pretty close call.)
I understand why traditional payola is verbotten, but this seems like a legitimate ad placement. Indeed, given how inexpensive radio advertising is at the local level (outside of drive time) I'm surprised small local bands haven't already grabbed onto this idea.
I know the RIAA and such is evil, but come on... as my grandfather used to say, even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Right, but with about 38% of the market... the other 62% is everyone else... which means WMA.
>yeah, notice how nobody's using Microsoft DRMed files either?
And, of course, by "Nobody" you mean "every music service on the planet-- including Napster 2.0, WalMart, etc.-- except Apple.
Would you like to provide some evidence of this? I haven't heard of a successful crack. If there is one, I'd like to know about it.
There are a lot of people out there (I'm one of them) that have a bunch of DRM-enabled WMA's on their hard drives that we'd like to be able to listen to on our iPods... but we can't because nobody has cracked the DRM. If there's been a crack available for 2 years I think that word would have gotten out that a solution exists.
I'm seeing a lot of "if it is digital it can be copied" and "any form of DRM/Copy Protection will be cracked within 10 minutes of release."
While this is true of Apple's DRM scheme, and any copy protection scheme that is even remotely compatible with REDBOOK (i.e. they are severely hobbled by what they can do within the constraints of backwards compatibility with existing players) I have to provide a counter argument:
Nobody has successfuly cracked Microsoft's DRM. Apple's DRM was cracked in mere days, but Microsoft's solution has existed for a couple years now without a successful crack.
Why is that?
Does this mean that an individual writing code would now get sued by the SCOs of the world instead of companies that deploy Linux? Is this a good thing?
If enough people voice their oppion about a "bad" show, then the network will listen and replace it with something else.
No, that's completely wrong. If a show doesn't get ratings or produce sufficient revanues then the show will get cancelled. Sending a thousand letters to the network with your opinion about a bad show will make ZERO difference. (Although sending letters to a show's ADVERTISERS can make a difference, since that can impact revanues.)
You forget that it is about MONEY, not about making quality programming. You have to remember that YOU are not the network's customer-- the advertisers are.
News flash: If Enterprise gets cancelled the money is more likely to be funnelled into "Who wants to marry a one-legged garbage man with a severe flattulence problem" than another sci-fi show.
Fair enough. However, I have less time feeling sorry for (starring) actors in that scenario, as their payrate more than compensates for the precarious nature of their employment status.
You're misunderstanding my premise.
First of all, I don't accept the premise that Enterprise is crap. I don't think it is nearly as good as TNG, but I also don't think it is any worse than Voyager. However, there are people that really like the show.
Also, it is a fairly safe assumption that if Enterprise gets canned that it could be over for Star Trek... which would be devistating to a lot of people.
I'm just saying that it is lame to root for someone to lose. If the show stays on the air BECAUSE PEOPLE WATCH IT (the ratings aren't very good, but they aren't horrible) AND BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO SAVE IT (there was a massive letter writing campaign) then why should you WANT IT TO GET CANCELLED? Because you think that the franchise will improve as a result? I've got news for you: that's not how Paramount will look at things. Whenever someone says "Hey! Let's do another Star Trek show/movie/etc" Paramount will say "Nope. Enterprise bombed, we're not going to do another one."
I doubt that's true: I would venture a guess that it takes at least twice as many people (and 5 times as much money, which goes into the economy through special effects shops, etc.) to make an episode of Enterprise than it does to make an episode of "Who Wants to Marry a One-legged Garbage man with a Flattulance problem?"
:)
It's not quite a zero-sum game.
Well, this is good news. Enterprise is not my favorite flavor of Trek, but it's better than nothing. Besides, there have been a couple good episodes this season.
I'm sure some people would have revelled in an Enterprise cancellation... to them, I'd like to pose a question which always bugged me: if you don't like a show, you don't watch it, right? If you don't watch it why would it matter to you whether or not it is cancelled? It just seems so mean-spirited to wish for a show's cancellation-- over a hundred people lose their jobs as a result, and I'm not talking about high-paid actors, I'm talking about camera men, editors, janitors-- normal people. It's not fun losing a job, folks.
Anyway... on with the flame fest.
Look... I'm a star trek fan and everything, but there's a limit. Seriously. Outside. Sunlight.
They fucked themselves by saving a buck on the free song you were entitled to? Uh... yeah.
QUOTE: "A similar issue was covered by the Slashdot story Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case on the right to reverse engineer to create an interoperable network. Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue at question here is not whether or not it is legal to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and create an interoperable network, but rather the right to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and provide unlicensed access to the existing network. A subtle, but important distinction.
To draw an analogy, if I create a network of systems that does something, then (as I understand it) it is perfectly legal for you to reverse engineer my methodology and create a competing network that works in a similar way (within the constraints of patents, of course... and the act of reverse engineering something legally is a fairly complex one.) However, it would NOT (nessesarily, depending on the access license for my network) be legal for you to reverse-engineer an unlicensed client that accesses my network. In other words, it's not the act of reverse engineering that's illegal, but rather connecting your client to MY network.
However, in the case of a pure P2P system, I'm not sure that argument will hold up. This would have been an interesting one to watch. Too bad KCEasy backed down so easily.
Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right. Free speech is a right. Free press is a right. Reverse engineering (within certain constraints) is simply legal.
--- JRJ
"Sun has always been like this. They have no real interest in open source as an ideal, or Linux as anything other than a means of marketing leverage. And lets' be honest, they've openly said as much for quite some time."
Mod parent up... this guy gets it.
>If you can look at the source, and contribute back changes, it is "Open".
I contend that if a company can (and does) sue you for making a change or an extension to the technology that they don't like then it isn't Open.
--- JRJ
Fair enough. Can we out-polite each other any more? :)
My point is this: Most people think Java is Open Source, and that (over time) dillutes the meaning of Open Source and gives Sun undue credit.
Your point is that most people equate Open Source with the availability of source code for READING as opposed to any specific licensing clause... I agree, but I think we're saying the same thing.
--- JRJ
>if one can look at a program's source, then it is open source
By that Rationalle, Windows is Open Source.
(Yes, I know you weren't advocating the view point, just pointing it out.)
--- JRJ
I've never understood why the Open Source community is so quick to praise Sun, and pretend like Java it's an Open/Free technology... it's not. Is it a good, elegant language? Yes. Is it Open? No. Downloadable source code does not make Open software-- the key is in the licensing. IBM gets Open Source a lot more than Sun does, but doesn't get nearly as much credit.
I totally agree with the notion that the Java Desktop (which IS basically a Linux distro) doesn't sufficiently acknowledge its Linux roots. I also think that their licensing of the Java Desktop is WAY too restrictive and closed to fit within the constraints imposed by the GNU-licensed technologies that are part of it. I just don't understand why people are surprised. Why would you expect them to do anything differently than they have in the past? They make pretty good stuff... but to pretend like they are an Open Source advocate is a mistake.
Of course, with that said, Sun has an army of lawyers... I'm sure they are not technically violating the GNU. They know better.
--- JRJ
I've met Chris a number of times... he's a real stand-up guy with a good head on his shoulders. If Microsoft had more like him they would probably be very successful... no, wait...
I rather like Microsoft's newfound interest in what they call "transparancy." I think that the blogging trend inside MS is a good thing-- it is surprising how little the company curtails the content on their employee's blogs.
--- JRJ
I'd have to say Office 2003, Dreamweaver MX, and Photoshop, and VisualStudio.NET because I use them for work... followed by Mozilla and iTunes because I love them... Finally, NewsGator because I can't live without it.