sort of like how apple goes out of it's way to prevent you from making use of bought copies of osx.
if that isn't illegal, in the traditional sense, i don't know what is.
no manufacturer has the right to prevent lawful use of products, period. lawful being that you paid for the copy. after that, they have no say. but digitial technology unjustly gives them that power. and when that fails, they have their puppets in congress.
EULA = unjust and unlawful. that some judges uphold it... just means we need more competent judges on the side of the law.
what is a EULA?
copyright gives you the RIGHT to use the copy you paid for. period.
so what does the EULA give you?
that's right, nothing.
they want the protection of the copyright system but don't want to abide by the terms of it when it doesn't suit them. seems like THEY are the infringers.
that the studios and merchants give those new high tech blu-ray players away otherwise it'd be a low down dirty shame if customers had their purchased physical products disabled because the vendors decided they wanted control of products after they have been sold.
oh wait...
somehow, HD-DVD doesn't look as bad now...
check the sig to see what i really think of practices such as this.
and before people rattle on about how you can take you money elsewhere... tell that to congress who in a miraculous moment, voted that car manufacturers couldn't encrypt vehicle chips and lock out non-approved mechanics.
owning one's own property... how an old outmoded tradition.
you are free to use any DRM or otherwise crippled products... but please don't lie and say it's freedom. we're all in one way or another forced to use things we don't like but be honest about what's going on.
on the internet, you DON'T control the use of your content, simple.
don't put it up without password authentication if you want some measure of "control".
fuddruckers and anyone else on the web have a right to link to whatever they want.
that's what the web is all about.
and talk about netequette.. the poor webmaster redirected the output to a virtual goatse picture or whatever.
they both messed up but the webmaster of the site in question is clearly unhappy that the hippie communists have the nerve and daring to link to his precious content.
if it's available to the public, you have every right to link to it. there is no STEALING involved here whatsoever. NETequette is a different matter.
actually, if you did your homework, you'd realize that when blanks first came out, they were close to 80 bucks EACH.
this was around 2000 i think. maybe they were more expensive the farther back you go but that was when i started seeing them on store shelves.
they like to rip the early adopters a new one each generation.
today, they produce dvd discs that don't cost any more than cds that sell for almost 2-3 times as much as cds, and those are the generic no-name brands.
they are charging extortionist prices. and the next gen media will be a lot worse. even sony says that bluray drives will add 100 bucks onto the cost of the ps3... which is already hideously expensive.
don't count on the ps3 to popularize the bluray standard... most people wouldn't be able to afford it.
that's one of the reasons why it's a lot cheaper to produce... in theory.
in theory, they also sold the dvd discs at 70 bucks a pop about 4 years ago. and they still overcharge a huge amount today. so cheaper is for the manufacturer, not for the end user.
where else online can you get the same music by the same artists without DRM-crippling?
that's why it's a monopoly, and an abusive one at that.
if they don't want to offer it DRM free, it's our duty to point out that they are scumbags. and also to uncripple it at our leisure, which is becoming mroe difficult by the day.
actually, most of the buyers don't have a clue as to the limitations of the pseudo-music files they'll be buying.
the geek population (and shame on them for buying DRM-crippled music when they should know better) that buys music online is a small fraction of the total number of purchasers.
so no, most people don't have any notion whatsoever of the artificial limitations imposed on them by the high priced music files.
or if goliath rounded up all the rocks in the area before hand.
your analogy only makes sense if you remove the part where intel is doing illegal stuff. they have every right to compete WITHIN the law. but once they go outside, by definition it is criminal behavior. and it hurts the customers and the industry.
unfortunetly in this world, sometimes you don't have the choice to go with a saint over a devil.
amd is a part of the Insidious Computing group. intel, microsoft, apple, ibm are also part of that group. the thing is, in a free market amd would be able not to cripple their chips and still win with the end-users. but if they don't cripple the chips, they'll be left out in the cold.
it's collusion by means of coercion. it doesn't make sense to increase the die space and complexity of your chips to include features that no customer wants. and ironic that the customer will be paying for the difference in order to buy a less capable processor. i guess apple is in the same boat here.
actually it doesn't matter if they're a monopoly or not. the very act of changing the price of their product if the merchant agrees not to buy a competitor's product is illegal. hence they're criminals.
who knows, maybe microsoft isn't a slime sucking scumbag monopolist. let the courts decide.
oh wait...
japan's FTC kicked intel's ass for being scumbags and south korea is now looking to bring charges against them. i'm certainly glad at least 2 countries have enough courage and cojones to stand up to these bullies and criminals.
"When you license intellectual property, you do so at the mercy of the owner of the work. If you don't like their terms and conditions and price, you go elsewhere or write your own software."
then they can stop being protected under the copyright system if they don't abide by its terms.
you don't need a license to use anything in the copyright system.
find the section of the law that requires you to have a license to use purchases made under the copyright system?
if content authors wish to use the copyright system and be protected by it, they have to abide by the laws of the land. and the law of the land stipulates that when a commercial transaction takes place, the owner is the person who paid for the product. and since the product in this case is a copyrighted item, then the copyright law takes over. and copyright law grants the purchaser the right to use the item.
there is no mention of EULAs in the copyright laws of any nation on this earth. if you find the section of law that states you need a license to use copyrighted products, let me know. i'll be most interested in reading it.
you're being dishonest. and on top of that you have no clue as to what i'm trying to discuss.
and yes, there are osx copies on store shelves this minute that you can buy that run on ppc. yep, ppc. but try installing it on a non-apple ppc machine.
copyrighted purchases don't need contracts. when someone purchases a copyrighted book or movie, they don't need a contract with the manufacturer to view them. they can view the movies on any device they please.
the whole issue boils down to the fact that copyright grants the purchaser the right to use the product being purchased. and a EULA, which is not recognized as a contract, cannot be used to recind your right to use your purchase. copyright only prohibits you from distributing copies.
you don't extra permission from the manufacturer to use a product, that's what the copyright system grants the user. under the copyright system, apple or any software vendor doesn't have the right to prevent the purchaser from using the product. under the law they also don't have to support unapproved configurations and they have the right perhaps to void the warranty.
copyright does not grant the vendor to prevent use.
Slashdot Mirror
sort of like how apple goes out of it's way to prevent you from making use of bought copies of osx.
if that isn't illegal, in the traditional sense, i don't know what is.
no manufacturer has the right to prevent lawful use of products, period. lawful being that you paid for the copy. after that, they have no say. but digitial technology unjustly gives them that power. and when that fails, they have their puppets in congress.
EULA = unjust and unlawful. that some judges uphold it... just means we need more competent judges on the side of the law.
what is a EULA?
copyright gives you the RIGHT to use the copy you paid for. period.
so what does the EULA give you?
that's right, nothing.
they want the protection of the copyright system but don't want to abide by the terms of it when it doesn't suit them. seems like THEY are the infringers.
that the studios and merchants give those new high tech blu-ray players away otherwise it'd be a low down dirty shame if customers had their purchased physical products disabled because the vendors decided they wanted control of products after they have been sold.
oh wait...
somehow, HD-DVD doesn't look as bad now...
check the sig to see what i really think of practices such as this.
and before people rattle on about how you can take you money elsewhere... tell that to congress who in a miraculous moment, voted that car manufacturers couldn't encrypt vehicle chips and lock out non-approved mechanics.
owning one's own property... how an old outmoded tradition.
you are free to use any DRM or otherwise crippled products... but please don't lie and say it's freedom. we're all in one way or another forced to use things we don't like but be honest about what's going on.
not ALL of you anyway.
that sun owned the copyright on openoffice.
i thought they only owned staroffice.
bandwidth theft?
i didn't know you graduated from the RIAA school of Accounting and Business
speaking of 15 year olds... ;)
on the internet, you DON'T control the use of your content, simple.
don't put it up without password authentication if you want some measure of "control".
fuddruckers and anyone else on the web have a right to link to whatever they want.
that's what the web is all about.
and talk about netequette.. the poor webmaster redirected the output to a virtual goatse picture or whatever.
they both messed up but the webmaster of the site in question is clearly unhappy that the hippie communists have the nerve and daring to link to his precious content.
if it's available to the public, you have every right to link to it. there is no STEALING involved here whatsoever. NETequette is a different matter.
"Capitalism is about healthy competition that follows rules."
that eliminates about 99% of businesses right there.
ethical commerce doesn't exist, even more so in the the hearts and minds of people.
they call you a fool for wanting just and fair business.
actually, if you did your homework, you'd realize that when blanks first came out, they were close to 80 bucks EACH.
this was around 2000 i think. maybe they were more expensive the farther back you go but that was when i started seeing them on store shelves.
they like to rip the early adopters a new one each generation.
today, they produce dvd discs that don't cost any more than cds that sell for almost 2-3 times as much as cds, and those are the generic no-name brands.
they are charging extortionist prices. and the next gen media will be a lot worse. even sony says that bluray drives will add 100 bucks onto the cost of the ps3... which is already hideously expensive.
don't count on the ps3 to popularize the bluray standard... most people wouldn't be able to afford it.
and if you believe that, i have a bridge to rent/lease you.
i think you mean 5 Mb.
/sec. , greater than the Bluray spec.
.6 MegaBytes /sec.
5MB is 40 megabits
why 5Mb is about
just being a little pedantic whore.
carry on.
actually, no. hd dvd uses modified red lasers.
that's one of the reasons why it's a lot cheaper to produce... in theory.
in theory, they also sold the dvd discs at 70 bucks a pop about 4 years ago. and they still overcharge a huge amount today. so cheaper is for the manufacturer, not for the end user.
where else online can you get the same music by the same artists without DRM-crippling?
that's why it's a monopoly, and an abusive one at that.
if they don't want to offer it DRM free, it's our duty to point out that they are scumbags. and also to uncripple it at our leisure, which is becoming mroe difficult by the day.
yeah forget about about purchasing music cus uh like you are renting it now.
support DRM - it pleases the RIAA and the MPAA.
actually, most of the buyers don't have a clue as to the limitations of the pseudo-music files they'll be buying.
the geek population (and shame on them for buying DRM-crippled music when they should know better) that buys music online is a small fraction of the total number of purchasers.
so no, most people don't have any notion whatsoever of the artificial limitations imposed on them by the high priced music files.
you have to pay a levy to the RIAA/MPAA in case you copy DVDJon.
actually it isn't pure speculation at all.
japan busted intel for the very same things amd is "alleging".
and south korea is also moving to bring charges against intel.
intel=microsoft. for people who have a clue as to what goes on in the industry, they know it as fact.
they aren't rumors to people in the know.
and what if goliath killed david in his sleep?
is that an acceptable business practice?
or if goliath rounded up all the rocks in the area before hand.
your analogy only makes sense if you remove the part where intel is doing illegal stuff. they have every right to compete WITHIN the law. but once they go outside, by definition it is criminal behavior. and it hurts the customers and the industry.
and what if you were microsoft being accused of anti-competitive practices and other illegal behavior?
what would you do then?
not nearly as evil as intel.
unfortunetly in this world, sometimes you don't have the choice to go with a saint over a devil.
amd is a part of the Insidious Computing group. intel, microsoft, apple, ibm are also part of that group. the thing is, in a free market amd would be able not to cripple their chips and still win with the end-users. but if they don't cripple the chips, they'll be left out in the cold.
it's collusion by means of coercion. it doesn't make sense to increase the die space and complexity of your chips to include features that no customer wants. and ironic that the customer will be paying for the difference in order to buy a less capable processor. i guess apple is in the same boat here.
actually it doesn't matter if they're a monopoly or not. the very act of changing the price of their product if the merchant agrees not to buy a competitor's product is illegal. hence they're criminals.
who knows, maybe microsoft isn't a slime sucking scumbag monopolist. let the courts decide.
oh wait...
japan's FTC kicked intel's ass for being scumbags and south korea is now looking to bring charges against them. i'm certainly glad at least 2 countries have enough courage and cojones to stand up to these bullies and criminals.
there are very few slashdotters who condone and encourage anti-competitive and illegal behavior.
the ones that purport to do so work for a little company in santa clara...
just another day in astroturf world.
"When you license intellectual property, you do so at the mercy of the owner of the work. If you don't like their terms and conditions and price, you go elsewhere or write your own software."
then they can stop being protected under the copyright system if they don't abide by its terms.
you don't need a license to use anything in the copyright system.
find the section of the law that requires you to have a license to use purchases made under the copyright system?
if content authors wish to use the copyright system and be protected by it, they have to abide by the laws of the land. and the law of the land stipulates that when a commercial transaction takes place, the owner is the person who paid for the product. and since the product in this case is a copyrighted item, then the copyright law takes over. and copyright law grants the purchaser the right to use the item.
there is no mention of EULAs in the copyright laws of any nation on this earth. if you find the section of law that states you need a license to use copyrighted products, let me know. i'll be most interested in reading it.
you're being dishonest. and on top of that you have no clue as to what i'm trying to discuss.
and yes, there are osx copies on store shelves this minute that you can buy that run on ppc. yep, ppc. but try installing it on a non-apple ppc machine.
copyrighted purchases don't need contracts. when someone purchases a copyrighted book or movie, they don't need a contract with the manufacturer to view them. they can view the movies on any device they please.
the whole issue boils down to the fact that copyright grants the purchaser the right to use the product being purchased. and a EULA, which is not recognized as a contract, cannot be used to recind your right to use your purchase. copyright only prohibits you from distributing copies.
you don't extra permission from the manufacturer to use a product, that's what the copyright system grants the user. under the copyright system, apple or any software vendor doesn't have the right to prevent the purchaser from using the product. under the law they also don't have to support unapproved configurations and they have the right perhaps to void the warranty.
copyright does not grant the vendor to prevent use.