actually, once an artist SELLS a copy of a work, they don't have any further rights to tell the "customer" what to do with it, including but not limited to on what machines to enjoy it on, how many times they may watch/listen to it etc. the only "protection" they get is from copyright which just prevents unauthorized distribution and nothing else (the fact that current laws say otherwise is a testament to our leaders'/representatives' ability to accept bribes, as "draconifying" laws do not benefit the public in ANY way.)
the next point, "if they want to DRM them, who are you to tell them no"... i thought i made it clear. the work belongs to the public by default. so the artists "choice" in DRM/crippling it goes against the public benefit in more ways than one. in effect, if we were to stick to the original bastardization of copyright, "content producers" wouldn't have the right to cripple the works of the public. hence, the lowlife greedy scumbag artists can go to hell.
i'm not advocating that you shouldn't be able to sell stuff. just that you can in no way whatsoever tell the customer ANYTHING after the transaction has been completed. and no, a EULA is not a contract and software isn't licensable (neither is video/audio works). the current law disagrees with basic human logic because thousands of bribers aka lobbyists have perverted the law into the favor of cartels, aka "content producers".
and yes, i am more than justified in using that many quotation marks... when dealing with subject matter such as this, it requires that people be more thoughtful about what words mean and what they REALLY mean including the context in which they're spoken.
i'd rather they keep their "works" secret than pervert the law(s) to their benefit. laws by definition are for the public good. if they are not, then the people need to decide what to do in that situation.
why anyone would desire that merchants have control of merchandise AFTER it has been sold... is beyond belief.
by definition, it belongs to the public. it always has. but copyright has perverted the concept so people think that whoever assembled the pieces of information, suddenly OWNS it.
standing on the shoulders of giants... first of all, there are NO giants. we are ALL standing on each others' shoulders.
the fact that copyright even in its most docile form, contradicts human historical and fundamental concepts of nature, then think what the current copyright system does.
information hoarders/restricters simply want to be your masters. most people are too naive to understand why this is the case even when told.
and why on earth would you switch to another proprietary "os" to gain more freedom? to play with, sure, to use and understand, yes but if you want freedom, then only GNU is worth a damn.
if some company owns it, it means YOU DON'T.
libre software is the only software that is freedom oriented at its core. everything else is a digital handcuff. now through situations out of our control we may have to use handcuff software but ultimately it is best for everyone to migrate over to libre software.(eventually hardware too...).
proprietary needs to die a horrible death along with "brand loyalty".
the problem with all versions of quake3 was that any non-intel cpu couldn't use the SSE instructions built into the game, even if the cpu had SSE capability. the dll's you found just enabled SSE for all cpus.
remember back a few years ago when the p4's were "so much better/faster" at quake3? now you know why. when athlons running much slower in clockspeed beat the crap out of p4's using SSE, you could see that quake3 was compiled with an intel compiler.
that's one of the examples of why intel is going to be fu**ed over by amd's lawsuit and they earned it.
why carmack didn't fix this simple little problem is beyond me...
imagine if crooked business models were shut down for the benefit of mankind, why there'd be rioting in the streets by poor out of work lawyers and executives.
honest commerce is dead, long live honest commerce.
when you can show that a EULA is a contract, i'll agree with you.
a EULA is completely one-sided. in a commercial transation, such a contract would have zero chance of being signed. after all, if a contract isn't signed and agreed to by 2 or more parties, then it isn't valid.
a EULA also disclaims that the manufacturer is completely off the hook in regards to the product causing any damage. that if it were to format your drives or corrupt all the files or even to turn off your fans and let your hardware melt, they aren't responsible.
a EULA also states that the product is not promised to do anything, including but not limited to what the manufacturer claims. such that if you buy a car, the manufacturer claims that the car may or may not run, that it may or may not blow up when you turn the key, it may or may not even have an engine inside. etc. that's just one example. commercial.
there are other reasons but these are the ones off the top of my head.
a eula is not a contract. 2 parties didn't agree. simply preventing the installation of software by making your press "i agree" does not constitute an agreement.
just waiting for some real judges to throw these legal hogwash EULAs out.
again you missed the point. they can do anything they desire to further their business model so long as it doesn't take away customer's rights to use purchased copies.
apple can never die because any unapproved installation of osx will never be supported and i agree with that.
they are artificially restricting the customer's rights to use osx in a manner that apple doesn't approve.
like DVDs that linux users buy and find out that they can't "legally" play the copy they bought.
are you going to tell me that linux users have no right to view the dvd they BOUGHT?
this is an issue of honest commerce. one which the customer can use their purchase in a lawful manner. apple will get their 130 bucks for the copy... yet they still want to tell you how to use it after they sold that copy...
i HAVE read them. and that's why they don't have any sway over me.
the things they disclaim in the EULA is so ridiculous and so anti-consumer, it isn't even worth mentioning.
when a real judge throws out this crap, one who hasn't been bought by the software industry, then even the little people will see how absurd EULAs are.
the false issue of being that people who install bought and paid for copies of osx86 (in 1-2 years)will automatically ask for and get apple's support. they don't want support and apple has the right to deny support. they don't have the right to prevent lawful uses of purchased software.
apple's OSX86 software will always work perfectly on apple hardware and will be supported ONLY on apple hardware. apple will continue to make the same amount of money or more. once apple sells a customer a copy of OSX, it becomes the CUSTOMER'S COPY. the customer then has the right, moral and especially legal to install that software on any computer they wish. the customer doesn't have the right to demand support for unapproved configurations.
in the above scenario, apple continues to sell apple hardware and osx86 and supports customers who buy them particular config.
what you're saying is very illogical as i've tried to show. there isn't any real honest reason to prevent BOUGHT copies of osx86 to be used on the customer's choice of computer.
you didn't address the core issue. that being what rights a company has in preventing a lawfully bought copy of software from being installed on the choice of computer the customer wants.
and after you have enumerated that right(s), ask yourself if that is reasonable. and if so, reasonable by most people's understanding of commerce or by a corportation's understanding.
guess what? once someone buys a product, such as off the shelf boxed copy of osx, it belongs to the customer. they can install it on an abacus if they so desire. the customers who install on unapproved hw don't want apple to provide support nor should apple do so.
why would anyone deny the rights of customers to do with their bought products what they wish. seems absurd.
actually, GPL software give you MORE rights than you started with and GPL doesn't say anything in how you use software. you can install it on abacus or a wrist watch. the only thing GPL regulates is how software is distributed and it's more than fair.
software is a product, always has been a product and always will be. that you bought the propoganda that you need a license to use SOFTWARE YOU BOUGHT, is hogwash. in a year or 2 osx86 will be selling on store shelves. by your logic, even after paying the 130 bucks or so and walking out of the store, you're still a "pirate". because you intend to use it on a computer you already own (x86).
if that doesn't go against all the rules of commerce people know, then the world is in major trouble.
apple = anti-consumer. show how it is otherwise and i'll change my mind. and software licenses that restrict your ability to use said software lawfully is not a valid argument.
and yes, i will buy osx86. i want to use it on my computer. and i will not infringe the manufacturer's copyright and will not distribute it. and in your eyes i'm still a pirate. nice world you live in, but i don't want to live there. i'm going to work for change, even if people like you think the manufacturer has a right to tell you how to use a product once it has been sold.
speaking the truth to those who hold, without sway, the opposite view, is like spitting venom. the business model is sacred even if it doesn't reflect reality.
they don't take kindly to enlightenment of any sort.
so please keep your toxin sacs in check and kindly mosey on out of here you sorry excuse for an ogre.
no one here in their right mind would even suggest apple in any way supports non-authorized hardware. but in a few years when osx x86 is on store shelves and some people go in and purchase said software... what the pro-apple people are saying is that said purchasers of software then have no right, legal or moral to install it on the hardware of their choice.
no software vendor has the moral (legal is up in the air somewhat...)right to tell customers who bought their software, how and where to run their software. once the purchase has been made, it no longer still belongs to the manufacturer.
and no one is asking apple to support them. that they go out of their way to prevent lawful uses of purchased software... well it just means that apple is yet another corporation. even with a bought copy they want you to run it on approved CSS-compliant players. never mind that it runs on any x86 computer, they want to unreasonably limit it's use.
because a company is more well regarded than most doesn't entitle them to stomp on the rights of customers. you don't go into a supermarket, walk out with a bag of chips and then you get stopped in the parking lot by the manager saying you may only use approved-brand of dips to eat it with. pick your own analogies, it's all the same. they've got their money, what the customer does with the product afterwards is none of the business of the merchant or manufacturuer.
anyone who tells you otherwise has something other than honest commerce on their minds.
seems like a perfect opportunity to recruit citizens to do things the police are by law not allowed. i mean it worked so well for the USSR and the pre-ww2 germans.
Slashdot Mirror
you're forgotten rule #1
the miserable consumer a**hole has no rights.
incidentally, rule #2 is "goto rule #3"
and you might have guessed rule #3 thru #999...
actually, once an artist SELLS a copy of a work, they don't have any further rights to tell the "customer" what to do with it, including but not limited to on what machines to enjoy it on, how many times they may watch/listen to it etc. the only "protection" they get is from copyright which just prevents unauthorized distribution and nothing else (the fact that current laws say otherwise is a testament to our leaders'/representatives' ability to accept bribes, as "draconifying" laws do not benefit the public in ANY way.)
the next point, "if they want to DRM them, who are you to tell them no"... i thought i made it clear. the work belongs to the public by default. so the artists "choice" in DRM/crippling it goes against the public benefit in more ways than one. in effect, if we were to stick to the original bastardization of copyright, "content producers" wouldn't have the right to cripple the works of the public. hence, the lowlife greedy scumbag artists can go to hell.
i'm not advocating that you shouldn't be able to sell stuff. just that you can in no way whatsoever tell the customer ANYTHING after the transaction has been completed. and no, a EULA is not a contract and software isn't licensable (neither is video/audio works). the current law disagrees with basic human logic because thousands of bribers aka lobbyists have perverted the law into the favor of cartels, aka "content producers".
and yes, i am more than justified in using that many quotation marks... when dealing with subject matter such as this, it requires that people be more thoughtful about what words mean and what they REALLY mean including the context in which they're spoken.
i'd rather they keep their "works" secret than pervert the law(s) to their benefit. laws by definition are for the public good. if they are not, then the people need to decide what to do in that situation.
why anyone would desire that merchants have control of merchandise AFTER it has been sold... is beyond belief.
the artists can fu** themselves.
real "artists" do not lock up "their" works.
notice the quotations around "their".
by definition, it belongs to the public. it always has. but copyright has perverted the concept so people think that whoever assembled the pieces of information, suddenly OWNS it.
standing on the shoulders of giants... first of all, there are NO giants. we are ALL standing on each others' shoulders.
the fact that copyright even in its most docile form, contradicts human historical and fundamental concepts of nature, then think what the current copyright system does.
information hoarders/restricters simply want to be your masters. most people are too naive to understand why this is the case even when told.
in conclusion, fu** the artists.
and genocide done right, we could get rid of the undesirables, leaving the planet just for the moral elite.
DRM is a friend of the devil. its aim is to sodomize you.
mind you, that's in laymans terms. to make it easier to understand for the non-technical public.
DRM was developed with the aim of NOT helping you but to helping them control you and information in general.
copyright was developed to allow the british monarchy to more easily allow censorship.
spread the word. DRM !IS! EVIL. by definition it can never and WILL never be used to help you or the public. period.
undeletable cookies? mandatory tracking systems?
did you say "go to hell, you consumer piece of shit", i knew you did.
you believed in a member of the RIAA and the MPAA?
bad boys, bad boys.
whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they send a cease and desist for you?
and why on earth would you switch to another proprietary "os" to gain more freedom? to play with, sure, to use and understand, yes but if you want freedom, then only GNU is worth a damn.
if some company owns it, it means YOU DON'T.
libre software is the only software that is freedom oriented at its core. everything else is a digital handcuff. now through situations out of our control we may have to use handcuff software but ultimately it is best for everyone to migrate over to libre software.(eventually hardware too...).
proprietary needs to die a horrible death along with "brand loyalty".
the problem with all versions of quake3 was that any non-intel cpu couldn't use the SSE instructions built into the game, even if the cpu had SSE capability. the dll's you found just enabled SSE for all cpus.
remember back a few years ago when the p4's were "so much better/faster" at quake3? now you know why. when athlons running much slower in clockspeed beat the crap out of p4's using SSE, you could see that quake3 was compiled with an intel compiler.
that's one of the examples of why intel is going to be fu**ed over by amd's lawsuit and they earned it.
why carmack didn't fix this simple little problem is beyond me...
yeah, the business model is sacred.
imagine if crooked business models were shut down for the benefit of mankind, why there'd be rioting in the streets by poor out of work lawyers and executives.
honest commerce is dead, long live honest commerce.
virtual pounding.
haha, now that's funny.
when you can show that a EULA is a contract, i'll agree with you.
a EULA is completely one-sided. in a commercial transation, such a contract would have zero chance of being signed. after all, if a contract isn't signed and agreed to by 2 or more parties, then it isn't valid.
a EULA also disclaims that the manufacturer is completely off the hook in regards to the product causing any damage. that if it were to format your drives or corrupt all the files or even to turn off your fans and let your hardware melt, they aren't responsible.
a EULA also states that the product is not promised to do anything, including but not limited to what the manufacturer claims. such that if you buy a car, the manufacturer claims that the car may or may not run, that it may or may not blow up when you turn the key, it may or may not even have an engine inside. etc. that's just one example.
commercial.
there are other reasons but these are the ones off the top of my head.
a eula is not a contract. 2 parties didn't agree. simply preventing the installation of software by making your press "i agree" does not constitute an agreement.
just waiting for some real judges to throw these legal hogwash EULAs out.
again you missed the point. they can do anything they desire to further their business model so long as it doesn't take away customer's rights to use purchased copies.
apple can never die because any unapproved installation of osx will never be supported and i agree with that.
they are artificially restricting the customer's rights to use osx in a manner that apple doesn't approve.
like DVDs that linux users buy and find out that they can't "legally" play the copy they bought.
are you going to tell me that linux users have no right to view the dvd they BOUGHT?
this is an issue of honest commerce. one which the customer can use their purchase in a lawful manner. apple will get their 130 bucks for the copy... yet they still want to tell you how to use it after they sold that copy...
i HAVE read them. and that's why they don't have any sway over me.
the things they disclaim in the EULA is so ridiculous and so anti-consumer, it isn't even worth mentioning.
when a real judge throws out this crap, one who hasn't been bought by the software industry, then even the little people will see how absurd EULAs are.
a very disengenuous argument.
the false issue of being that people who install bought and paid for copies of osx86 (in 1-2 years)will automatically ask for and get apple's support. they don't want support and apple has the right to deny support. they don't have the right to prevent lawful uses of purchased software.
apple's OSX86 software will always work perfectly on apple hardware and will be supported ONLY on apple hardware. apple will continue to make the same amount of money or more. once apple sells a customer a copy of OSX, it becomes the CUSTOMER'S COPY. the customer then has the right, moral and especially legal to install that software on any computer they wish. the customer doesn't have the right to demand support for unapproved configurations.
in the above scenario, apple continues to sell apple hardware and osx86 and supports customers who buy them particular config.
what you're saying is very illogical as i've tried to show. there isn't any real honest reason to prevent BOUGHT copies of osx86 to be used on the customer's choice of computer.
the EULA says so. what a wonderful argument.
you didn't address the core issue. that being what rights a company has in preventing a lawfully bought copy of software from being installed on the choice of computer the customer wants.
and after you have enumerated that right(s), ask yourself if that is reasonable. and if so, reasonable by most people's understanding of commerce or by a corportation's understanding.
guess what? once someone buys a product, such as off the shelf boxed copy of osx, it belongs to the customer. they can install it on an abacus if they so desire. the customers who install on unapproved hw don't want apple to provide support nor should apple do so.
why would anyone deny the rights of customers to do with their bought products what they wish. seems absurd.
actually, GPL software give you MORE rights than you started with and GPL doesn't say anything in how you use software. you can install it on abacus or a wrist watch. the only thing GPL regulates is how software is distributed and it's more than fair.
software is a product, always has been a product and always will be. that you bought the propoganda that you need a license to use SOFTWARE YOU BOUGHT, is hogwash. in a year or 2 osx86 will be selling on store shelves. by your logic, even after paying the 130 bucks or so and walking out of the store, you're still a "pirate". because you intend to use it on a computer you already own (x86).
if that doesn't go against all the rules of commerce people know, then the world is in major trouble.
apple = anti-consumer. show how it is otherwise and i'll change my mind. and software licenses that restrict your ability to use said software lawfully is not a valid argument.
and yes, i will buy osx86. i want to use it on my computer. and i will not infringe the manufacturer's copyright and will not distribute it. and in your eyes i'm still a pirate. nice world you live in, but i don't want to live there. i'm going to work for change, even if people like you think the manufacturer has a right to tell you how to use a product once it has been sold.
yes it is.
speaking the truth to those who hold, without sway, the opposite view, is like spitting venom. the business model is sacred even if it doesn't reflect reality.
they don't take kindly to enlightenment of any sort.
so please keep your toxin sacs in check and kindly mosey on out of here you sorry excuse for an ogre.
then it'll be finally be taken to court.
EULA's are contracts in the same sense that pig latin is latin.
sort of like windows xp starter edition, affectionately known as crippled crap edition.
the software vendor's rights ends where my wallet begins.
people who say otherwise either don't understand the issue or understand it too well... they don't want you to have any property rights.
control = support.
no one here in their right mind would even suggest apple in any way supports non-authorized hardware. but in a few years when osx x86 is on store shelves and some people go in and purchase said software... what the pro-apple people are saying is that said purchasers of software then have no right, legal or moral to install it on the hardware of their choice.
no software vendor has the moral (legal is up in the air somewhat...)right to tell customers who bought their software, how and where to run their software. once the purchase has been made, it no longer still belongs to the manufacturer.
and no one is asking apple to support them. that they go out of their way to prevent lawful uses of purchased software... well it just means that apple is yet another corporation. even with a bought copy they want you to run it on approved CSS-compliant players. never mind that it runs on any x86 computer, they want to unreasonably limit it's use.
because a company is more well regarded than most doesn't entitle them to stomp on the rights of customers. you don't go into a supermarket, walk out with a bag of chips and then you get stopped in the parking lot by the manager saying you may only use approved-brand of dips to eat it with. pick your own analogies, it's all the same. they've got their money, what the customer does with the product afterwards is none of the business of the merchant or manufacturuer.
anyone who tells you otherwise has something other than honest commerce on their minds.
Light DRM is good.
i'm really tempted to read the article and it isn't available.
www.understandingxmlandtheslashdoteffect.com
i would ask you if could join you for your freshly killed lamb/beef dinner.
yeah, it's what's for dinner.
seems like a perfect opportunity to recruit citizens to do things the police are by law not allowed. i mean it worked so well for the USSR and the pre-ww2 germans.