I've always thought the reverse was the better choice.
You have any site submit its content for review for a.kids domain. Any site w/ content not designed for children under 12 years old faces huge penalties depending on the content.
I think that is probably the best way to protect little ones on the web.
Well I never intended to suggest that "turd on a stick" was a wise marketing decision for a product, but instead that in terms of products (and especially F/OSS projects) that the only initially is the name of the product important. Once a product gets popular enough the name is irrelevant because whatever the name was, whatever symbol was otherwise used it become identifiable as the product in question.
We as a culture no longer thing Q-tips are a funny name, or saying "just Google it" is awkward or meaningless because those names have become the product.
If gaim is as a solid piece of software five years from now no one in the world will think pidgin was a poor name choice, they won't be able to think of an alternative.
I had no idea that the naming of the GIMP went that way. I learned something today.
Perhaps it wasn't obvious in the post, but my point wasn't that people should call their projects whatever they want without thought of the consequences, but instead that as long as the name is within a certain level of decency and the product it represents is impressive enough the name decreases in importance.
After all most product names make very little sense or are awkward combinations of words that do make sense. Again my point is that Pidgin will be a fine name because gaim is such a quality piece of software
You might have had a point with a better example. AOL's Instant Messaging program gets abbreviated AIM and we all just call in AIM which is a bloodyterrible name. It already has a meaning in the English language that has nothing to do with text messaging. There is no way you can logically stretch 'aim' (as in to target) to deal with conversing with people in text.
More importantly the GIMP is only the name used for brevity's sake. GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program. If you are so embarrassed about using the name GIMP at the office (while using Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, Photoshop, Skype, AIM, MSN, from companies like Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo) then call it by its longer name.
The point that you struggle with is brand identity. AIM, Apple, OSX, iPod, and Wii only seem like decent names because they have strong brand identity. The reason Ekiga is a "crappy" name when compared with Skype is because Skype is the bigger brand (at the moment).
You could call your product "turd on a stick" and if it sold amazingly will consumers would call it a genius naming scheme.
Pidgin although seemingly odd now will feel natural when users start using it and the next "generation" of nerds grows up only knowing it as pidgin. Plus it is a lot easier to craft advertising around a pigeon than a GAIM (whatever that would be.)
As much as I would love to agree with you on this it is difficult to convince those who have been using MS Outlook for a decade to switch to something new and foreign, especially if it isn't similar to Outlook. When in Windows I use thunderbird but it just isn't quite an Outlook "killer." In Linux I'll use Evolution and that is truly an Outlook replacement, however, there is no option to use it in Windows.
So until I can find something that'll handle all the contacts, calendars, palm/pocketPC syncing, and etc of Outlook in one semi-familar look and feel then I'm stuck with Outlook at work for the non-geek masses.
If you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them! [Due to a limitation of solid GIS software in Linux a full OS switch isn't possible either.]
I have to say I agree with the author a bit about certain projects that are "open-source" but then have more advanced closed-source versions yet champion how open source they are and how great for the community that is. The given example SugarCRM is a perfect example.
SugarCRM does offer an open source version of their software and it seems to be pretty solid. However if you look at it versus even the lowest paid closed source version very important functionality has been removed; namely Outlook support and access restrictions. The Outlook thing may be a licensing issue [though it seems all the projects I find that do Outlook support always seem to charge for it and I can't imagine all of them use some 3rd party library they can't open source.] so I'll let it slide but to be used for almost any serious business there is a base requirement to restrict what certain sales-people can and cannot see within a CRM like that. By removing that functionality they are almost completely making the open source version useful for any business.
This of course is within their rights and if desired anyone could branch SugarCRM and include this stuff. At the same time I wonder what's the point, why not just keep it closed and make your sales? Does open sourcing an intentionally crippled version of the software really help them at all other than the marketing aspect of them having an open source version?
For example Zimbra has no intention of ever releasing an open source version of their Outlook adapter for their product. This smacks of wanting business to pay for the software. My question then is why not just make the bloody license "not free for commercial purposes" like plenty of other software, why make a big deal about it being open-source but then intentionally cripple the open source version?
My mistake, I was not aware that Apple was beholden to the RIAA on matters of digital restrictions in order to electronically distribute their wares. Though even if Apple were ultimately responsible for their DRM I would still choose Apple over the RIAA.
Perhaps in your opinion they aren't doing anything unethical or wrong. I think it is as best bad business to choose to not trust their customers and assume them to be criminals and at worst unethical to monitor them to force them to do only exactly what Apple wants them to do. The example is similar to what I initially replied.
Now I'm not sure how much of this is Apple and how much of it is the RIAA. Also no one has to shop there so it isn't as bad as it could be. But a little bit of mistrust and wrong is still bad.
That is the beauty of free-market capitalism, until the music distribution industry collectively decides that all forms of music distribution will have DRM embedded, or computer hardware manufacturers embed DRM directly into the hardware. Then the problem is solved by not buying music and/or computers. Which is of course always an option, however, not a great option.
What you are essentially arguing is a digital version of the "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing hide so we should be allowed to monitor your behavior" excuse. DRM technology shows a distinct lack of trust between buyer and seller on the part of the seller. Apple's DRM technically is monitoring my behavior in an attempt to prevent me from doing anything to break the law. This sounds great, but it has the exact same problems as any other monitoring problems.
"If someone could offer a mystical, magical video surveillance solution that never so much as made a peep unless the user was actually (and let's say blatantly) violating any law and it was 100% accurate, the only people who would care would be those who are breaking the law..."
Right, you'd totally agree to that. Basically that's what DRM is doing to your computer. As most people object to the above, most people _should_ object to the DRM technology. It is my computer, I'm presumed innocent until proved guilty, so assume I'm a law abiding citizen [its bloody insulting to your consumers to assume they are criminals] and prosecute me when you catch me breaking the law.
If they don't trust me not to break the law I am certainly not going to trust them to do the same.
Because in the case of Computer-to-Computer calls it is easy enough to build encryption seamlessly into the software you use to make calls. Imagine if Skype by default encrypted all Skype calls. As a geek I could use Skype with all non-geek friend safely and my friends who have no extra-effort of knowledge to do so.
I've tried convincing friends [even some geek friends] to encrypt their emails and IMs but laziness is hard to overcome. Sending my parents an encrypted IM or email is next to impossible because the encryption isn't hidden to them.
And it is possible. Using SSL is hidden from the user. They don't have to manage keys or even know that it is going on at all. Everyone uses SSL encryption for that reason when using sensitive websites, the technology is there to use it elsewhere in the digital world. The software just has to be smart about it. [This is why I'm convinced gaim should come with the gaim-encryption or gaim-otr plugins by default].
Although this will certainly deter certain easier methods of cracking DRM technologies it won't [nor can it] stop the persistent for the a very important reason; the hacker is also a legitimate user.
At some point the data-stream needs to be decrypted and presented to the user and at that point the data is no longer secure and subject to being copied.
Until monitor/speaker/etc manufacturers decided to allow encryption in their hardware there will always been vulnerable points to stealing content.
Though I am overwhelmingly happy that someone has decided to take the idea of privacy and security seriously enough to provide an easy solution to securing people's data.
An important thing to remember is that the government [due to abuses during Vietnam and later] is now restricted from gathering and maintaining information on innocent civilians. It would be illegal for the government to aggregate all these data sources together into a large database to be used to "digitally spy" on people.
In the case of private companies they are unrestricted in gathering amazingly detailed information on innocent people. In fact currently the market only encourages these things both to the benefit of their customers and to themselves.
The problem is that the government can [and does] use these data sources when needed. It is a giant loophole in personal privacy from the government. They cannot directly collect info on me unless they suspect me of a crime. If they want to buy access to my data from a private business [without suspecting me of a crime] they can do so. Major loophole.
The larger danger is that there is no legal or monetary motivation for accurate data. If a data collection company has data that I have bad credit due to identity theft they have no motivation to really fix it, even if it ruins my financial future.
There needs to be regulations about what is allowed to be capture, shared, and sold similar to medical privacy laws. Certain other information is just as important to keep private. Though lobbyists will deter any action Congress might consider.
The point is that there is not another option. It isn't as though you can go into Wallmart and choose the DRM version of your favorite DVD for $15.00 and the DRM free version of your favorite version for $25.00. If you want to legally own the movie you are required to purchase it with some form of DRM included.
This is the problem with massive DRM controls. Would I buy more music from iTunes if I didn't have to get the DRM heavy aac files? I would absolutely. In fact the only reason I don't buy more from iTunes is that legally bypassing their DRM by burning the files to CD and re-ripping them to DRM-free mp3s is that the things I want to buy [audio books mostly] are so large as to make me burn 10-20 CDs a shot. Not fun.
Consumers are often more interested in getting the content than anything else. This of all the Linux users who shout "Free Software" yet use proprietary drivers, have libdvdcss installed and any number of legally suspect programs installed.
The only way the market will show consumer contempt is through choice between DRM and non-DRM. The fact that there is no choice leave either the option to submit to DRM or to refuse to have such content.
Imagine is hardware manufacturers made hardware that only ran pre-approved, DRMed, signed programs. This would kill open software like GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc. If this were the case are you to honestly suggest that all those disenfranchised people were to just give up computers, programming, whatever until the market decides this is unhealthy? In principle I agree they should, but in reality this would never happen. People don't work this way and the pressures of the individually are always greater than the pressures of the market. [Otherwise Free Software advocates would never use Windows, even for their jobs.]
IM logging is indeed a handy feature especially within the context of your example.
I think people's concern might be that if Google is logging your chats then any conversation you have [even confidential conversations] are stored and controlled by Google, forever.
In your business setting the logging is basically like having a stenographer in a meeting and you own and control the notes. I think you'd want that same control if using Google's technology. After all if you discuss something confidential you'd want it insure it remains that way.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there will always be a market for open source friendly hardware. I think just looking at HP printers and their Linux capabilities illustrates how if one plays nice it can booster sales from the GNU community.
My point is that _a lot_ of $BigNameHardwareVendors will agree to terms because they otherwise lose an overwhelming percentage of the market. More importantly as Linus himself argues that such hardware can be favorable to open source companies like Redhat.
In the end some companies may play nice but such a move would be harmful to the hobbiest crowd because we aren't large enough to drive the market on our own and Windows users are. So in the end we will only be an after thought and thus our hardware will never be as robust or varied because we cannot be monitarily equal to Windows. [Least not yet]
Although Linus makes very good points I think he doesn't understand the pernicious nature of those who would want DRM technology.
Granted as a software creator I should have the ability to do whatever I want and the F/OSS community should only have domain over what they create. However, we are _not_ an independent community. Without hardware vendors the software we create is worthless.
If the almighty Microsoft decided to lock out hobbiests and allow only those paying into a "partners" program to have their software signed as running on windows and neither the OS nor the underlying hardware allowed for execution of unsigned code then the F/OSS would run into problems.
Granted "we" as a community could buy other hardware, but with the _vast_ market share of Microsoft it would be difficult [as it is to get drivers now] to convince vendors to spend the time, energy, and $$$ to develop F/OSS friendly hardware.
I think Linus is a bit niave in thinking that larger software vendors won't make backdoor agreements with larger hardware vendors to use DRM technology to remove competition.
I mean they've used every other tactic they can think of, why not hardware DRM?
Although it seems (and may be) discriminatory, we have to keep in mind a few things. First of all, this is a computer game. And like someone else already mentioned, Blizzard wants to keep the focus of the game on the gameplay, and not on the politics/religion/race/sexual orientation of the players. The intent of the game is NOT to recreate real life, but to create a fantasy world, and effectively entertain the players.
However it is part of the gameplay to establish a sense of community and fellowship with other gamers whom you like and play with. Not only is this desirable in the "hippy" sense but it is fiscally wise for Blizzard because the more fellowship for users the more likely they will continue to play their MMORPG. To deny recruitment for certain communities without outright banning all recruitment is outright discrimination. Especially when you factor in/ignore capabilities.
Secondly, Blizzard has a lot to lose from allowing a free-for-all on their forums & servers. Yes, we should encourage tolerance and understanding, but a fantasy online world is probably one of the worst places to do so. Besides, by allowing the free-for-all that would probably ensue if they maintained a hands-off approach, the persecuted members would probably leave because the harassment ruined the game, some of the persecutes would leave out of disgust that Blizzard allowed the persecuted, and everyone would be a little turned off by the inevitable flamewars.
No they really don't, they have nothing to lose by allow people the freedom to create [and encourage] communities for any reason. Hell 2nd life[secondlife.com] maintains only the legally minimalistic control over their universe and are certainly not plagued by flamewars and destructive anarchy. Those offended by GLBT recruit would ignore those members and those who reacted immaturely and offensively to that recruitment would be ignored by the recruiters.
Thirdly, you must remember that Blizzard owns WoW. It's a business. And their priority is to make money. If that means asking some players with unpopular real-world views or characteristics to keep said views or characteristics to themselves in order to keep more people happy and paying, so be it. They are not infringing on those players' rights to free speech elsewhere, or their religion/race/sex/orientation/whatever in real life. It's a private institution, and they can set and enforce the rules as you see fit.
Finally you have to remember that Blizzard is a United States business and their servers are located here and thus they must maintain all US laws. This means they cannot discriminate based on race/gender/religion or whatever. Integration pretty much did away with all that happy crappy. They are indeed a private institution but they can only set the legal rules they see fit.
While this may be true it is not as often the technique. Both investors and employees who are investors gain or lose money based on stock price. Taking the "long-term" view only works if in the interim the sock-holders continue to support [with $$$] that strategy. If a company decides to run at a loss in order to later gain larger profits and the stock holders lose confidence. They can either demand a short-term view of sell their devaluing stock which hurts the companies income.
Most investors are not long-term investors. If I buy google stock I don't want to lose money immediately only to remake it plus some more a year, 2, 5, or 10 down the road. So I either vote for immediate profit or sell my shares. Either way that is pushing for short-term perspective.
Once you go public you are a slave to those who invest. If they are short sighted [which they often are] then so is the company.
If he is suggesting that the EFF has lost too many cases to be useful, who is he suggesting stand up to take the reigns?
I don't know many lawyers who are dedicated to fighting for digital rights for the little guy. Should I [if I were a victim of this DRM technology] go hire a local lawyer without the technical experience to sue Sony?
The EFF might lose, they might even lose a LOT, but that may not be because they are bad lawyers, but that they are fighting for rights that no one knows they are losing and big business is fighting desperately to win.
They are the best we have and until someone better comes along I'm glad they are fighting the good fight.
The point that if the artists themselves become the people who finance movies then we cut out an unnecessary middle-man who makes money off of simply having money. Look at George Lucus. He was initially paid no money for the original star wars but was smart enough to gain mechandizing rights to the movie. After it came out he made a fortune and immediate used that profit to make the second film which Fox helped distribute for some money but NOT a majority percentage. In the end we got an untampered with film of high quality specifically because the artist was in control of his own work, without corporate tampering, and ultimately the film was better off for it.
Citizen Kane is often represented as the best film ever. When Wells made it, it was with an explicit agreement that no changes were to be made to it unless he personally authorized it.
Dave Matthews refused to sign a record deal with RCA for five years until he was sure that he would have exclusive control over his music.
Why is it the artists have to sell the "Intellectual Property" to distrubuters only to get a small part of the profit? Isn't there a better way?
I think its ironic that this article made Slashdot at the particular time. Gaim's summer of code had projects ranging from Yahoo Whiteboard support, to better filetransfers, to group editing of text files/images/music. Also support for audio VoIP.
There is also a webcam plugin in the works for gaim as well [though I'm uncertain for which protocol(s) they are aiming at.
It is for exactly these features that gaim hasn't released a new version in much longer than their normal development cycle. In perhaps a few weeks most of these complaints [as well as many other advantages like dbus and fixed perl interfaces] will be irrelevant.
Actually its only your fault if the software works as expected but YOU screwed something up for it not to work properly.
If Symantic promised that it would scan virii without messing up his system(s) and he followed the install/configuration procedures perfectly then it isn't his fault that the software doesn't work as expected. It is the vendors fault for selling faulty software.
Now it wasn't advantageous for him to have rolled it out untested, but it isn't the admins fault if the product doesn't work as it is advertised. It was foolish NOT to test the software first, but it isn't their fault that it broke everything.
If i buy a new car, it is smart to test drive it first, but it isn't an obligation. If I don't test drive it, then buy it, and then on the highway the breaks fail and I crash into another car, I'm not responsible, the dealer [or manufacturor] is. People might not think I'm a genious, but they won't fault me. [Or at least they shouldn't.]
Slashdot Mirror
I've always thought the reverse was the better choice.
.kids domain. Any site w/ content not designed for children under 12 years old faces huge penalties depending on the content.
You have any site submit its content for review for a
I think that is probably the best way to protect little ones on the web.
Well I never intended to suggest that "turd on a stick" was a wise marketing decision for a product, but instead that in terms of products (and especially F/OSS projects) that the only initially is the name of the product important. Once a product gets popular enough the name is irrelevant because whatever the name was, whatever symbol was otherwise used it become identifiable as the product in question.
We as a culture no longer thing Q-tips are a funny name, or saying "just Google it" is awkward or meaningless because those names have become the product.
If gaim is as a solid piece of software five years from now no one in the world will think pidgin was a poor name choice, they won't be able to think of an alternative.
I had no idea that the naming of the GIMP went that way. I learned something today.
Perhaps it wasn't obvious in the post, but my point wasn't that people should call their projects whatever they want without thought of the consequences, but instead that as long as the name is within a certain level of decency and the product it represents is impressive enough the name decreases in importance.
After all most product names make very little sense or are awkward combinations of words that do make sense. Again my point is that Pidgin will be a fine name because gaim is such a quality piece of software
You might have had a point with a better example. AOL's Instant Messaging program gets abbreviated AIM and we all just call in AIM which is a bloody terrible name. It already has a meaning in the English language that has nothing to do with text messaging. There is no way you can logically stretch 'aim' (as in to target) to deal with conversing with people in text.
More importantly the GIMP is only the name used for brevity's sake. GIMP = GNU Image Manipulation Program. If you are so embarrassed about using the name GIMP at the office (while using Outlook, Excel, PowerPoint, Photoshop, Skype, AIM, MSN, from companies like Microsoft, Google, or Yahoo) then call it by its longer name. The point that you struggle with is brand identity. AIM, Apple, OSX, iPod, and Wii only seem like decent names because they have strong brand identity. The reason Ekiga is a "crappy" name when compared with Skype is because Skype is the bigger brand (at the moment).
You could call your product "turd on a stick" and if it sold amazingly will consumers would call it a genius naming scheme.
Pidgin although seemingly odd now will feel natural when users start using it and the next "generation" of nerds grows up only knowing it as pidgin. Plus it is a lot easier to craft advertising around a pigeon than a GAIM (whatever that would be.)
As much as I would love to agree with you on this it is difficult to convince those who have been using MS Outlook for a decade to switch to something new and foreign, especially if it isn't similar to Outlook. When in Windows I use thunderbird but it just isn't quite an Outlook "killer." In Linux I'll use Evolution and that is truly an Outlook replacement, however, there is no option to use it in Windows.
So until I can find something that'll handle all the contacts, calendars, palm/pocketPC syncing, and etc of Outlook in one semi-familar look and feel then I'm stuck with Outlook at work for the non-geek masses.
If you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them! [Due to a limitation of solid GIS software in Linux a full OS switch isn't possible either.]
I have to say I agree with the author a bit about certain projects that are "open-source" but then have more advanced closed-source versions yet champion how open source they are and how great for the community that is. The given example SugarCRM is a perfect example.
SugarCRM does offer an open source version of their software and it seems to be pretty solid. However if you look at it versus even the lowest paid closed source version very important functionality has been removed; namely Outlook support and access restrictions. The Outlook thing may be a licensing issue [though it seems all the projects I find that do Outlook support always seem to charge for it and I can't imagine all of them use some 3rd party library they can't open source.] so I'll let it slide but to be used for almost any serious business there is a base requirement to restrict what certain sales-people can and cannot see within a CRM like that. By removing that functionality they are almost completely making the open source version useful for any business.
This of course is within their rights and if desired anyone could branch SugarCRM and include this stuff. At the same time I wonder what's the point, why not just keep it closed and make your sales? Does open sourcing an intentionally crippled version of the software really help them at all other than the marketing aspect of them having an open source version?
For example Zimbra has no intention of ever releasing an open source version of their Outlook adapter for their product. This smacks of wanting business to pay for the software. My question then is why not just make the bloody license "not free for commercial purposes" like plenty of other software, why make a big deal about it being open-source but then intentionally cripple the open source version?
To me in a way it just seems manipulative.
My mistake, I was not aware that Apple was beholden to the RIAA on matters of digital restrictions in order to electronically distribute their wares. Though even if Apple were ultimately responsible for their DRM I would still choose Apple over the RIAA.
Perhaps in your opinion they aren't doing anything unethical or wrong. I think it is as best bad business to choose to not trust their customers and assume them to be criminals and at worst unethical to monitor them to force them to do only exactly what Apple wants them to do. The example is similar to what I initially replied.
Now I'm not sure how much of this is Apple and how much of it is the RIAA. Also no one has to shop there so it isn't as bad as it could be. But a little bit of mistrust and wrong is still bad.
That is the beauty of free-market capitalism, until the music distribution industry collectively decides that all forms of music distribution will have DRM embedded, or computer hardware manufacturers embed DRM directly into the hardware. Then the problem is solved by not buying music and/or computers. Which is of course always an option, however, not a great option.
What you are essentially arguing is a digital version of the "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing hide so we should be allowed to monitor your behavior" excuse. DRM technology shows a distinct lack of trust between buyer and seller on the part of the seller. Apple's DRM technically is monitoring my behavior in an attempt to prevent me from doing anything to break the law. This sounds great, but it has the exact same problems as any other monitoring problems.
"If someone could offer a mystical, magical video surveillance solution that never so much as made a peep unless the user was actually (and let's say blatantly) violating any law and it was 100% accurate, the only people who would care would be those who are breaking the law..."
Right, you'd totally agree to that. Basically that's what DRM is doing to your computer. As most people object to the above, most people _should_ object to the DRM technology. It is my computer, I'm presumed innocent until proved guilty, so assume I'm a law abiding citizen [its bloody insulting to your consumers to assume they are criminals] and prosecute me when you catch me breaking the law.
If they don't trust me not to break the law I am certainly not going to trust them to do the same.
Because in the case of Computer-to-Computer calls it is easy enough to build encryption seamlessly into the software you use to make calls. Imagine if Skype by default encrypted all Skype calls. As a geek I could use Skype with all non-geek friend safely and my friends who have no extra-effort of knowledge to do so.
I've tried convincing friends [even some geek friends] to encrypt their emails and IMs but laziness is hard to overcome. Sending my parents an encrypted IM or email is next to impossible because the encryption isn't hidden to them.
And it is possible. Using SSL is hidden from the user. They don't have to manage keys or even know that it is going on at all. Everyone uses SSL encryption for that reason when using sensitive websites, the technology is there to use it elsewhere in the digital world. The software just has to be smart about it. [This is why I'm convinced gaim should come with the gaim-encryption or gaim-otr plugins by default].
Although this will certainly deter certain easier methods of cracking DRM technologies it won't [nor can it] stop the persistent for the a very important reason; the hacker is also a legitimate user.
At some point the data-stream needs to be decrypted and presented to the user and at that point the data is no longer secure and subject to being copied.
Until monitor/speaker/etc manufacturers decided to allow encryption in their hardware there will always been vulnerable points to stealing content.
Though I am overwhelmingly happy that someone has decided to take the idea of privacy and security seriously enough to provide an easy solution to securing people's data.
An important thing to remember is that the government [due to abuses during Vietnam and later] is now restricted from gathering and maintaining information on innocent civilians. It would be illegal for the government to aggregate all these data sources together into a large database to be used to "digitally spy" on people.
In the case of private companies they are unrestricted in gathering amazingly detailed information on innocent people. In fact currently the market only encourages these things both to the benefit of their customers and to themselves.
The problem is that the government can [and does] use these data sources when needed. It is a giant loophole in personal privacy from the government. They cannot directly collect info on me unless they suspect me of a crime. If they want to buy access to my data from a private business [without suspecting me of a crime] they can do so. Major loophole.
The larger danger is that there is no legal or monetary motivation for accurate data. If a data collection company has data that I have bad credit due to identity theft they have no motivation to really fix it, even if it ruins my financial future.
There needs to be regulations about what is allowed to be capture, shared, and sold similar to medical privacy laws. Certain other information is just as important to keep private. Though lobbyists will deter any action Congress might consider.
The point is that there is not another option. It isn't as though you can go into Wallmart and choose the DRM version of your favorite DVD for $15.00 and the DRM free version of your favorite version for $25.00. If you want to legally own the movie you are required to purchase it with some form of DRM included.
This is the problem with massive DRM controls. Would I buy more music from iTunes if I didn't have to get the DRM heavy aac files? I would absolutely. In fact the only reason I don't buy more from iTunes is that legally bypassing their DRM by burning the files to CD and re-ripping them to DRM-free mp3s is that the things I want to buy [audio books mostly] are so large as to make me burn 10-20 CDs a shot. Not fun.
Consumers are often more interested in getting the content than anything else. This of all the Linux users who shout "Free Software" yet use proprietary drivers, have libdvdcss installed and any number of legally suspect programs installed.
The only way the market will show consumer contempt is through choice between DRM and non-DRM. The fact that there is no choice leave either the option to submit to DRM or to refuse to have such content.
Imagine is hardware manufacturers made hardware that only ran pre-approved, DRMed, signed programs. This would kill open software like GNU/Linux, *BSD, etc. If this were the case are you to honestly suggest that all those disenfranchised people were to just give up computers, programming, whatever until the market decides this is unhealthy? In principle I agree they should, but in reality this would never happen. People don't work this way and the pressures of the individually are always greater than the pressures of the market. [Otherwise Free Software advocates would never use Windows, even for their jobs.]
IM logging is indeed a handy feature especially within the context of your example.
I think people's concern might be that if Google is logging your chats then any conversation you have [even confidential conversations] are stored and controlled by Google, forever.
In your business setting the logging is basically like having a stenographer in a meeting and you own and control the notes. I think you'd want that same control if using Google's technology. After all if you discuss something confidential you'd want it insure it remains that way.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that there will always be a market for open source friendly hardware. I think just looking at HP printers and their Linux capabilities illustrates how if one plays nice it can booster sales from the GNU community.
My point is that _a lot_ of $BigNameHardwareVendors will agree to terms because they otherwise lose an overwhelming percentage of the market. More importantly as Linus himself argues that such hardware can be favorable to open source companies like Redhat.
In the end some companies may play nice but such a move would be harmful to the hobbiest crowd because we aren't large enough to drive the market on our own and Windows users are. So in the end we will only be an after thought and thus our hardware will never be as robust or varied because we cannot be monitarily equal to Windows. [Least not yet]
Although Linus makes very good points I think he doesn't understand the pernicious nature of those who would want DRM technology.
Granted as a software creator I should have the ability to do whatever I want and the F/OSS community should only have domain over what they create. However, we are _not_ an independent community. Without hardware vendors the software we create is worthless.
If the almighty Microsoft decided to lock out hobbiests and allow only those paying into a "partners" program to have their software signed as running on windows and neither the OS nor the underlying hardware allowed for execution of unsigned code then the F/OSS would run into problems.
Granted "we" as a community could buy other hardware, but with the _vast_ market share of Microsoft it would be difficult [as it is to get drivers now] to convince vendors to spend the time, energy, and $$$ to develop F/OSS friendly hardware.
I think Linus is a bit niave in thinking that larger software vendors won't make backdoor agreements with larger hardware vendors to use DRM technology to remove competition.
I mean they've used every other tactic they can think of, why not hardware DRM?
Although it seems (and may be) discriminatory, we have to keep in mind a few things. First of all, this is a computer game. And like someone else already mentioned, Blizzard wants to keep the focus of the game on the gameplay, and not on the politics/religion/race/sexual orientation of the players. The intent of the game is NOT to recreate real life, but to create a fantasy world, and effectively entertain the players. However it is part of the gameplay to establish a sense of community and fellowship with other gamers whom you like and play with. Not only is this desirable in the "hippy" sense but it is fiscally wise for Blizzard because the more fellowship for users the more likely they will continue to play their MMORPG. To deny recruitment for certain communities without outright banning all recruitment is outright discrimination. Especially when you factor in /ignore capabilities.
Secondly, Blizzard has a lot to lose from allowing a free-for-all on their forums & servers. Yes, we should encourage tolerance and understanding, but a fantasy online world is probably one of the worst places to do so. Besides, by allowing the free-for-all that would probably ensue if they maintained a hands-off approach, the persecuted members would probably leave because the harassment ruined the game, some of the persecutes would leave out of disgust that Blizzard allowed the persecuted, and everyone would be a little turned off by the inevitable flamewars.
No they really don't, they have nothing to lose by allow people the freedom to create [and encourage] communities for any reason. Hell 2nd life[secondlife.com] maintains only the legally minimalistic control over their universe and are certainly not plagued by flamewars and destructive anarchy. Those offended by GLBT recruit would ignore those members and those who reacted immaturely and offensively to that recruitment would be ignored by the recruiters.
Thirdly, you must remember that Blizzard owns WoW. It's a business. And their priority is to make money. If that means asking some players with unpopular real-world views or characteristics to keep said views or characteristics to themselves in order to keep more people happy and paying, so be it. They are not infringing on those players' rights to free speech elsewhere, or their religion/race/sex/orientation/whatever in real life. It's a private institution, and they can set and enforce the rules as you see fit.
Finally you have to remember that Blizzard is a United States business and their servers are located here and thus they must maintain all US laws. This means they cannot discriminate based on race/gender/religion or whatever. Integration pretty much did away with all that happy crappy. They are indeed a private institution but they can only set the legal rules they see fit.
While this may be true it is not as often the technique. Both investors and employees who are investors gain or lose money based on stock price. Taking the "long-term" view only works if in the interim the sock-holders continue to support [with $$$] that strategy. If a company decides to run at a loss in order to later gain larger profits and the stock holders lose confidence. They can either demand a short-term view of sell their devaluing stock which hurts the companies income. Most investors are not long-term investors. If I buy google stock I don't want to lose money immediately only to remake it plus some more a year, 2, 5, or 10 down the road. So I either vote for immediate profit or sell my shares. Either way that is pushing for short-term perspective. Once you go public you are a slave to those who invest. If they are short sighted [which they often are] then so is the company.
If he is suggesting that the EFF has lost too many cases to be useful, who is he suggesting stand up to take the reigns? I don't know many lawyers who are dedicated to fighting for digital rights for the little guy. Should I [if I were a victim of this DRM technology] go hire a local lawyer without the technical experience to sue Sony? The EFF might lose, they might even lose a LOT, but that may not be because they are bad lawyers, but that they are fighting for rights that no one knows they are losing and big business is fighting desperately to win. They are the best we have and until someone better comes along I'm glad they are fighting the good fight.
The point that if the artists themselves become the people who finance movies then we cut out an unnecessary middle-man who makes money off of simply having money. Look at George Lucus. He was initially paid no money for the original star wars but was smart enough to gain mechandizing rights to the movie. After it came out he made a fortune and immediate used that profit to make the second film which Fox helped distribute for some money but NOT a majority percentage. In the end we got an untampered with film of high quality specifically because the artist was in control of his own work, without corporate tampering, and ultimately the film was better off for it. Citizen Kane is often represented as the best film ever. When Wells made it, it was with an explicit agreement that no changes were to be made to it unless he personally authorized it. Dave Matthews refused to sign a record deal with RCA for five years until he was sure that he would have exclusive control over his music. Why is it the artists have to sell the "Intellectual Property" to distrubuters only to get a small part of the profit? Isn't there a better way?
I think its ironic that this article made Slashdot at the particular time. Gaim's summer of code had projects ranging from Yahoo Whiteboard support, to better file transfers, to group editing of text files/images/music. Also support for audio VoIP. There is also a webcam plugin in the works for gaim as well [though I'm uncertain for which protocol(s) they are aiming at. It is for exactly these features that gaim hasn't released a new version in much longer than their normal development cycle. In perhaps a few weeks most of these complaints [as well as many other advantages like dbus and fixed perl interfaces] will be irrelevant.
Actually its only your fault if the software works as expected but YOU screwed something up for it not to work properly. If Symantic promised that it would scan virii without messing up his system(s) and he followed the install/configuration procedures perfectly then it isn't his fault that the software doesn't work as expected. It is the vendors fault for selling faulty software. Now it wasn't advantageous for him to have rolled it out untested, but it isn't the admins fault if the product doesn't work as it is advertised. It was foolish NOT to test the software first, but it isn't their fault that it broke everything. If i buy a new car, it is smart to test drive it first, but it isn't an obligation. If I don't test drive it, then buy it, and then on the highway the breaks fail and I crash into another car, I'm not responsible, the dealer [or manufacturor] is. People might not think I'm a genious, but they won't fault me. [Or at least they shouldn't.]
to download my illegal version of Longhorn via Avalanch. Microsoft, now making it easier to steal their own products. Ha!