I haven't got a problem with MPAA members showing movies in theaters. I pay the ticket price, I get to see Ian McKellan on the big screen in the company of a hopefully enthusiastic audience. Fair bargain.
I do have a problem with the way they are acting with respect to digital media and fair use. So I stopped buying their digital media, and I intend not to buy any until the fair-use-limiting features have been removed. That means I may not be buying the LOTR:FOTR DVD when it is released. But if the fair-use advocates win out in the end, it will be available on unencumbered media sometime in the future. I will buy it then.
Until then, there is Morpheus, or whatever, if I really want to have the damn thing that badly. But I don't. The books are more than a fine substitute for the DVD, and they happen to be completely unencumbered by fair-use-prevention technology.
I don't think I could stay awake to read a novelization of Episode 2, so there is probably no dilemma presented there...
If it were less effective, there wouldn't be as much of it. Duh.
Spam is not only more effective than traditional direct mail, it is far cheaper (for the advertiser).
I suppose the effectiveness will wane when net-newbies are no longer newbies. Which means never. As long as someone responds and the spammer gets results, the spammer will continue to seek those results.
This bill is the modern equivalent of an attempted law of the early 1900s, where automobiles were to be outlawed because they would put manure sweepers out of a job. (This is a real example, you can look it up.)
I like the manure sweeper analogy a lot better than the buggy whip analogy. Nice find.:)
That brought an angry retort from Andrew S. Grove, the chairman of Intel. "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"
Analogies to cars only go so far, we must acknowledge. They are useful to try and get a grasp of what direction to go, but when it gets down to details, the analogy breaks down. That doesn't mean that the broader analogy is invalid, it just means it has limited application to the software situation.
It's not unreasonable to expect that inasmuch as software as-a-product resembles a car as-a-product, the same rules ought to apply. By the same token, where they are different, the rules might need to be different.
I've every right to use it. I have an invoice right here that proves I paid for it. If the money I spent does not give me the right to use it, then what have I paid for?
People seem to be able to learn of safety problems with cars, insofar as the manufacturers and government do not conspire to conceal problems. Most motorists are not mechanics. They learn about problems from people and organizations that have mechanical expertise and can evaluate these things. How is this any different for software? If the source is available, someone is going to study it and issue a report, especially if it's a popular product.
I admit, there is a problem in this idea for vertical market products where the developers and the users are part of a specialized discipline. Few outside experts would audit source code for a specialized mathematics package that has a small customer base. I don't know what, if anything, might or ought to be done to address that.
My secretary installed that software, and I agreed to nothing. I see no contract. Where is the piece of paper with my signature? Prove that I read and agreed to anything.
I think any developer who releases source code should be shielded from product liability. The only ones that ought to be liable are the ones that keep the source code private.
If you release source, you have fully disclosed the capabilities of, as well as the flaws in your product, and any liability laws ought to recognize that and reduce yor eliminate your liability burden. If you decline to release source, you should assume liability for the undisclosed capabilities and flaws in your product. It would then be your choice whether keeping your code proprietary is worth assuming the liability burden.
Admittedly, I haven't thought about this a lot, but it has a certain logical appeal to it. There might be some ways around it. Maybe Microsoft releases source code to Windows 95 claiming it is for Windows 2000, hoping no one would notice. Myabe small firms or individuals that want to keep code proprietary are unfairly burdened. Or maybe lack of liability and/or source unfairly burdens the customer, regardless of the size of the vendor. I dunno... what do you think?
3. developers should be reasonably shielded from liability in cases where the customer/user *actually* modified the software (not just *had* source available) -- if the modifications had a substantive affect on the security or safety of the product;
I completely disagree. Availability of source should shield the developer from liability. Kill two birds with one stone: you're off the liability hook if you release source, simple as that. I think the benefit to the public of opening the source outweighs the benefit of holding liable those who release source. Only hold liable the ones that do not release source. They are the only ones withholding information, they are the only ones keeping the customer in the dark about the risks.
Of course there's still holes, and of course there'd still be piracy, but I think by and large content producers -- from RIAA to your Indie Label -- could collect a fee a little more often and most importantly would have much less to complain about.
We gave them more time to monopolize their works in 1976.
That wasn't enough, so we gave them even more time in 1998. We also enacted statutory royalties on blank media. They collect fees even when someone uses blank media for unpublished content, regardless of who has rights to it.
That still wasn't enough, so we gave them the DMCA.
Still not satisfied, they have put the SSSCA on the table.
I see no reason to believe that they'd be satisfied with the SSSCA. The content moguls have so far refused to be satisfied with any concessions given them in the past. What makes you think they will be satisfied with any future DRM scheme?
Pokemon are the best thing to happen to host naming schemes in a decade.
Our little boxes that don't do anything real important are named after weak Pokemon: Caterpie is the Solaris jumpstart server, Pikachu is the console server, Nidorina and Nidorino are the pair of ftp servers.
Medium sized boxes with more prominent roles are named after more powerful Pokemon: a firewall is Eevee, one nameserver is Metapod, another is Beedrill.
Finally, our largest and most critical boxen are named after the most powerful and evolved Pokemon. The NetApp filers, an active-active pair clustered together around 2Tb of storage, are named Mew and Mewtwo. Our E3000 mail hub is called Electabuzz.
OK, so you've probably noticed that I don't follow the evolutionary model exactly right (Nidorino is a medium-strength Pokemon). But who cares. It's fun, the names are spelled mostly phonetically, are easy to say and type, and there are plenty of them.
There's even an online reference: The Pokedex. Does it get any better than this?
With a President who appears to believe that he has been called by god to start Armageddon, we may just skip the whole mark-of-the-beast part of the end of the world scenario. But that wouldn't fulfill prophecy, so maybe there's nothing to worry about after all.
You see, to play blizzard games online you need to use battle.net.
Bnetd proves that you don't need battle.net to play Blizzard games.
Except for the fact that it allow people who have pirated blizzard's games to play them online, which they would not be able to do with only battle.net.
So fucking what? They can also play pirated games offline where there are no controls at all. Shall we outlaw offline play of Blizzard games because there is no CD Key checking?
Bnetd has many completely legal and ethical uses. It allows people who have bought the game to play it even if Blizzard decides to close up shop (which seems only a few months off, way things are going) or even if Blizzard's ISP is having technical difficulties. It also allows people to play in a controlled environment free of cheaters, something Blizzard has failed to provide.
It's also not strictly true that you can't play with illegitimate CD Keys on Battle.net. Keys are valid until Blizzard invalidates them. You could tell your friend your valid CD Key, and as long as neither of you are online at the same time, both of you can share the CD Key and play on Battle.net. So much for stopping piracy. Battle.net does not in fact, prevent piracy of Blizzard games. In fact, one could say that, like Bnetd, the primary purpose of Battle.net is not to prevent piracy, but to provide an online arena where players can meet each other and play. That it can have some effect on piracy is a secondary function. Bnetd tried to add this secondary function, but Blizzard refused to cooperate. So it was left out.
I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
What exactly has Bnetd stolen from Blizzard? Be specific. Name an item that Blizzard once possessed that they no longer possess because of Bnetd. If no one has lost anything, no theft has taken place.
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them....I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
This is not morality, this is what some people derisively call situational ethics. Your "morals" amount to "I'll do what I please." Following your ethical compass, it's OK to pirate Blizzard's software if you think it or the company sucks. I'll think I'll pass on your theory of ethics.
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over?
No dude, this is nothing to worry about. Fair Use and all that rot is just a bunch of theoretical bunk the pointy-headed academics use to keep us all confused. Just do whatever Blizzard and Disney want, and you'll be fine.
And when American Standard gets around to joining the game, you can ask them for permission to shit, and it'll be all good.
You are, in fact, the one engaging in a knee-jerk reaction. You instinctively feel the need to defend (apologize for) your president when anyone questions his actions.
Why don't you just come out with it and tell us all we're supporting terrosists here? Ask yourself: What Would Dubya Do? He'd roast us alive, wouldn't he? So get rid of the timid apologies, ok?
Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.
Larry is CEO of Oracle. Scott is CEO of Sun. Are you always this moronic in public, or are you trying to entertain us?
Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD.
That is false. IIS is selected for installation by default on Win2K, and on XP it is installed without even asking you whether you want it.
In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.
NT 4.0 is no longer sold or supported by Microsoft.
You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.
Of course you can, when the company in question is a monopoly. The ILECs were (admittedly ineffectively and half-heartedly) forced to open up their monopoly infrastructure to competing service providers. Why should the monopoly OS be treated any differently? It shouldn't.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If Gilmore is responsible for the spam sent through his open relay, then MAPS and Spews and Osirisoft and all the other DNSBL will be responsible when China begins imprisoning admins for leaving relays open.
The argument against Gilmore seems to be that when you know your actions will enable or make possible actions taken by others, and you take that action anyway, you are responsible for the actions of those other parties.
If that is so, then all ther DNSBL operators will be responsible if China starts locking up admins who neglect to close their relays. It is as simple as that. One follows from the other.
I am with Gilmore - spam is the problem, not open relays.
The real reason for DVD region coding: a publisher may not be able to secure the worldwide rights for a particular copyright.
I don't believe this for one second. Even if I did, I can't see how that makes the manufacturer of a DVD player responsible for protecting the publisher from an infringment suit abroad. The publisher should avoid publishing in jurisdictions where he has not secured his rights. If a bootleg copy makes it into the as-yet-unsecured market, that is no fault of the publisher or the manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, the rule about not competing with Microsoft, of course!
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things displaying a Natalie Portman montage.
I haven't got a problem with MPAA members showing movies in theaters. I pay the ticket price, I get to see Ian McKellan on the big screen in the company of a hopefully enthusiastic audience. Fair bargain.
I do have a problem with the way they are acting with respect to digital media and fair use. So I stopped buying their digital media, and I intend not to buy any until the fair-use-limiting features have been removed. That means I may not be buying the LOTR:FOTR DVD when it is released. But if the fair-use advocates win out in the end, it will be available on unencumbered media sometime in the future. I will buy it then.
Until then, there is Morpheus, or whatever, if I really want to have the damn thing that badly. But I don't. The books are more than a fine substitute for the DVD, and they happen to be completely unencumbered by fair-use-prevention technology.
I don't think I could stay awake to read a novelization of Episode 2, so there is probably no dilemma presented there...
Opposite what?
If it were less effective, there wouldn't be as much of it. Duh.
Spam is not only more effective than traditional direct mail, it is far cheaper (for the advertiser).
I suppose the effectiveness will wane when net-newbies are no longer newbies. Which means never. As long as someone responds and the spammer gets results, the spammer will continue to seek those results.
He neglected to mention of course, that Betty is blind, has a speech imediment, and weighs 400 lbs.
This bill is the modern equivalent of an attempted law of the early 1900s, where automobiles were to be outlawed because they would put manure sweepers out of a job. (This is a real example, you can look it up.)
:)
I like the manure sweeper analogy a lot better than the buggy whip analogy. Nice find.
That brought an angry retort from Andrew S. Grove, the chairman of Intel. "Is it the responsibility of the world at large to protect an industry whose business model is facing a strategic challenge?" he said in an interview. "Or is it up to the entertainment industry to adapt to a new technical reality and a new set of consumers who want to take advantage of it?"
Oh Yes! OH YES! OH YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!!
Andy's karma just went up a few notches there...
Analogies to cars only go so far, we must acknowledge. They are useful to try and get a grasp of what direction to go, but when it gets down to details, the analogy breaks down. That doesn't mean that the broader analogy is invalid, it just means it has limited application to the software situation.
It's not unreasonable to expect that inasmuch as software as-a-product resembles a car as-a-product, the same rules ought to apply. By the same token, where they are different, the rules might need to be different.
I've every right to use it. I have an invoice right here that proves I paid for it. If the money I spent does not give me the right to use it, then what have I paid for?
People seem to be able to learn of safety problems with cars, insofar as the manufacturers and government do not conspire to conceal problems. Most motorists are not mechanics. They learn about problems from people and organizations that have mechanical expertise and can evaluate these things. How is this any different for software? If the source is available, someone is going to study it and issue a report, especially if it's a popular product.
I admit, there is a problem in this idea for vertical market products where the developers and the users are part of a specialized discipline. Few outside experts would audit source code for a specialized mathematics package that has a small customer base. I don't know what, if anything, might or ought to be done to address that.
My secretary installed that software, and I agreed to nothing. I see no contract. Where is the piece of paper with my signature? Prove that I read and agreed to anything.
I think any developer who releases source code should be shielded from product liability. The only ones that ought to be liable are the ones that keep the source code private.
If you release source, you have fully disclosed the capabilities of, as well as the flaws in your product, and any liability laws ought to recognize that and reduce yor eliminate your liability burden. If you decline to release source, you should assume liability for the undisclosed capabilities and flaws in your product. It would then be your choice whether keeping your code proprietary is worth assuming the liability burden.
Admittedly, I haven't thought about this a lot, but it has a certain logical appeal to it. There might be some ways around it. Maybe Microsoft releases source code to Windows 95 claiming it is for Windows 2000, hoping no one would notice. Myabe small firms or individuals that want to keep code proprietary are unfairly burdened. Or maybe lack of liability and/or source unfairly burdens the customer, regardless of the size of the vendor. I dunno... what do you think?
3. developers should be reasonably shielded from liability in cases where the customer/user *actually* modified the software (not just *had* source available) -- if the modifications had a substantive affect on the security or safety of the product;
I completely disagree. Availability of source should shield the developer from liability. Kill two birds with one stone: you're off the liability hook if you release source, simple as that. I think the benefit to the public of opening the source outweighs the benefit of holding liable those who release source. Only hold liable the ones that do not release source. They are the only ones withholding information, they are the only ones keeping the customer in the dark about the risks.
Of course there's still holes, and of course there'd still be piracy, but I think by and large content producers -- from RIAA to your Indie Label -- could collect a fee a little more often and most importantly would have much less to complain about.
We gave them more time to monopolize their works in 1976.
That wasn't enough, so we gave them even more time in 1998. We also enacted statutory royalties on blank media. They collect fees even when someone uses blank media for unpublished content, regardless of who has rights to it.
That still wasn't enough, so we gave them the DMCA.
Still not satisfied, they have put the SSSCA on the table.
I see no reason to believe that they'd be satisfied with the SSSCA. The content moguls have so far refused to be satisfied with any concessions given them in the past. What makes you think they will be satisfied with any future DRM scheme?
Pokemon are the best thing to happen to host naming schemes in a decade.
Our little boxes that don't do anything real important are named after weak Pokemon: Caterpie is the Solaris jumpstart server, Pikachu is the console server, Nidorina and Nidorino are the pair of ftp servers.
Medium sized boxes with more prominent roles are named after more powerful Pokemon: a firewall is Eevee, one nameserver is Metapod, another is Beedrill.
Finally, our largest and most critical boxen are named after the most powerful and evolved Pokemon. The NetApp filers, an active-active pair clustered together around 2Tb of storage, are named Mew and Mewtwo. Our E3000 mail hub is called Electabuzz.
OK, so you've probably noticed that I don't follow the evolutionary model exactly right (Nidorino is a medium-strength Pokemon). But who cares. It's fun, the names are spelled mostly phonetically, are easy to say and type, and there are plenty of them.
There's even an online reference: The Pokedex. Does it get any better than this?
With a President who appears to believe that he has been called by god to start Armageddon, we may just skip the whole mark-of-the-beast part of the end of the world scenario. But that wouldn't fulfill prophecy, so maybe there's nothing to worry about after all.
Damn, I really despise magical thinking.
Any suggestions for additional entries?
Anyone who posts lists of people who should have been in the WTC.
You see, to play blizzard games online you need to use battle.net.
...I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
Bnetd proves that you don't need battle.net to play Blizzard games.
Except for the fact that it allow people who have pirated blizzard's games to play them online, which they would not be able to do with only battle.net.
So fucking what? They can also play pirated games offline where there are no controls at all. Shall we outlaw offline play of Blizzard games because there is no CD Key checking?
Bnetd has many completely legal and ethical uses. It allows people who have bought the game to play it even if Blizzard decides to close up shop (which seems only a few months off, way things are going) or even if Blizzard's ISP is having technical difficulties. It also allows people to play in a controlled environment free of cheaters, something Blizzard has failed to provide.
It's also not strictly true that you can't play with illegitimate CD Keys on Battle.net. Keys are valid until Blizzard invalidates them. You could tell your friend your valid CD Key, and as long as neither of you are online at the same time, both of you can share the CD Key and play on Battle.net. So much for stopping piracy. Battle.net does not in fact, prevent piracy of Blizzard games. In fact, one could say that, like Bnetd, the primary purpose of Battle.net is not to prevent piracy, but to provide an online arena where players can meet each other and play. That it can have some effect on piracy is a secondary function. Bnetd tried to add this secondary function, but Blizzard refused to cooperate. So it was left out.
I have moral qualms about stealing form blizzard, they deserve to get money for their software.
What exactly has Bnetd stolen from Blizzard? Be specific. Name an item that Blizzard once possessed that they no longer possess because of Bnetd. If no one has lost anything, no theft has taken place.
It's one thing to pirate music. The RIAA is an evil organization and I have no moral qualms about stealing from them.
This is not morality, this is what some people derisively call situational ethics. Your "morals" amount to "I'll do what I please." Following your ethical compass, it's OK to pirate Blizzard's software if you think it or the company sucks. I'll think I'll pass on your theory of ethics.
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over?
No dude, this is nothing to worry about. Fair Use and all that rot is just a bunch of theoretical bunk the pointy-headed academics use to keep us all confused. Just do whatever Blizzard and Disney want, and you'll be fine.
And when American Standard gets around to joining the game, you can ask them for permission to shit, and it'll be all good.
You are, in fact, the one engaging in a knee-jerk reaction. You instinctively feel the need to defend (apologize for) your president when anyone questions his actions.
Why don't you just come out with it and tell us all we're supporting terrosists here? Ask yourself: What Would Dubya Do? He'd roast us alive, wouldn't he? So get rid of the timid apologies, ok?
...the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today...
...just like a graphical user interface...
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
Bullshit!
Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.
Larry is CEO of Oracle. Scott is CEO of Sun. Are you always this moronic in public, or are you trying to entertain us?
Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD.
That is false. IIS is selected for installation by default on Win2K, and on XP it is installed without even asking you whether you want it.
In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.
NT 4.0 is no longer sold or supported by Microsoft.
You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.
Of course you can, when the company in question is a monopoly. The ILECs were (admittedly ineffectively and half-heartedly) forced to open up their monopoly infrastructure to competing service providers. Why should the monopoly OS be treated any differently? It shouldn't.
I'm afraid it is not that clear-cut.
Article VI says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If Gilmore is responsible for the spam sent through his open relay, then MAPS and Spews and Osirisoft and all the other DNSBL will be responsible when China begins imprisoning admins for leaving relays open.
The argument against Gilmore seems to be that when you know your actions will enable or make possible actions taken by others, and you take that action anyway, you are responsible for the actions of those other parties.
If that is so, then all ther DNSBL operators will be responsible if China starts locking up admins who neglect to close their relays. It is as simple as that. One follows from the other.
I am with Gilmore - spam is the problem, not open relays.
Now here comes the flames...
The real reason for DVD region coding: a publisher may not be able to secure the worldwide rights for a particular copyright.
I don't believe this for one second. Even if I did, I can't see how that makes the manufacturer of a DVD player responsible for protecting the publisher from an infringment suit abroad. The publisher should avoid publishing in jurisdictions where he has not secured his rights. If a bootleg copy makes it into the as-yet-unsecured market, that is no fault of the publisher or the manufacturer.