While everyone seems to have accepted this as the way it went down, some people on the/. thread about this case wondered how you prove timing.
If someone wipes a drive and is sued 2 days later, how do you prove the wipe had nothing to do with the suit?
No, that's just RMS sour grapes. The spirit and intent of the GPL was written into the GPL.
I don't think so. The spirit of law is never written -- the letter is written. Let's start with GPL version #1.
> By contrast, our General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software
Changing the software isn't relevent if you can't apply those changes. RMS has always maintained his three fundamental freedoms, and Freedom Number 1 is the freedom to change the program and make it do what you want. Tivo doesn't respect this freedom.
When the GPL was written, it was only considered to be applicable to software products. Once GPLed software started being bundled with hardware, GPL fanatics proclaimed that the hardware was subject to the whims of RMS's warped views on freedom as well.
Well, it's still only applicable to software: it still doesn't cover the hardware in any way. It just says that if a key is needed to run the software that the key needs to be made available. If someone puts the key into hardware that's their problem - not the GPL's problem.
Ain't so. GPL authors licensed their code then got pissed when their code got used in a matter that respected the license.
And since the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that "If I share my code with you you must share your revisions back", shouldn't that suggest to you that GPL developers feel that the Tivo did an end-run on them?
That's what GPLv3 does and that's why Linus rightly objects to it.
Hmmm... imho, Linus signed up with a guy who was interested in promoting software freedom and didn't really read the writings of the guy. That's just my opinion, maybe Linus will show up here and correct me. But it seems to me that RMS has always been about ensuring software freedoms. The GPL was created as a tool to further that, and imho RMS never hid his intention.
GPLv3 just clarrifies and further codifies what Stallman always had in mind. If Linus just wanted to share his code with others he could have picked BSD, which is more of a "here's my code, do what you want with it" kind of license.
an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable
but in Tivo's case the GPL is respected entirely.
Not the spirit and intent of the GPL... they just respect the letter. (hence GPLv3)
Then iTunes and all Intel Macs deserve a similar boycott.
Yup. Done and done.
as it is in Windows and OS X
Also removed from my household.
That's true of other products as well. Windows does it. OS X mostly likely does it.
Multiple companies doing something doesn't make it any more acceptable. This just hasn't hit something that the average consumer can understand and get inflamed about. And the problem is that as people become more accepting of something, the companies push a little further to see what else they can get. It's time to start pushing back.
I'm sure it's a fine product... just like Windows is.
But I just couldn't bring myself to use it (even if it was available in Canada) for a number of reasons:
the term 'tivoisation' is of course...about the tivo. Companies doing an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo doesn't play nice.
Tivo includes DRM. That's reason on it's own...
...but the DRM will be misused; even if by 'mistake'.
The mandatory updates change the product after you buy it. How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me. Like anyone would accept their 300hp car suddenly being downgraded to a 150hp car because GM was pressured by another industry....say the insurance industry.
And of course anything else that they might want to do with their hardware (it's clearly not yours!).
Basically in short, it's not your hardware, even though you've paid for it. You pay them, and they change the deal after they get your money.
On my to-do list is to build a myth box. And I'm going to build it with open-source, because I'm going to install it on hardware that I own and therefore should control.
Yup....
Giving an elected official money is called bribery and should be punished as such.
As others have stated here, a million dollar 'campaign contribution' is worth more than {a hundred letters, a thousand phone calls, ten thousand e-mails} from people who contribute nothing financial.
Sadly, and more importantly, the bribe is worth more than my vote.
How can democracy actually work when my vote is actually meaningless?
How can it be democracy when some people get more than 'one person; one vote' - they actually get to buy policy?
...and they seem to get tech - and what might make the geek take notice.
They were one of few majors I could find that made an MP3 player that played OGG format files...
The next improvement has to come in some other form, like say, price,
and since the bulk of the price of either a CD or DVD is copyright-holder charge and retailer markup (i.e. manufacturing costs of each disc is already pennies) a new type of media can't dramatically affect the price...
The problem will go away immediately if ISPs turn off flat pricing and users start to pay for bandwidth used. Even better - if they start charging a differential/tiered pricing depending on the type of traffic. There is no rocket science here. The gear currently on the market is supposed to be able to do it (does it do it is a different matter).
AFAIK the only way to tell what kind of traffic it is is to read the traffic. I don't want my ISP reading my traffic. As it is I'm looking at a service like secure-tunnel (anyone out there use it?).
Once encrypted I don't see how they can tell what it is (despite what Allot tech says) on a packet-basis. Maybe they can tell by traffic patterns what kind of traffic it is, but TFA is pretty light on details.
So any tiered pricing that worked based on ports would leave the ISPs ripped off (all my traffic would go over the cheap ports) and anything that reqires unencrypting traffic is unacceptable to me for so many many reasons.
I have no problem charging for the bits, or for sustained usage vs. peak usage or max usage per month or whatever, but not based on content. there's just too much potential for abuse.
To put this another way, if everyone saturated their pipe, they would have to charge upwards of 10x for your cable or DSL connection as they currently do.
while I won't dispute a price increase, I suspect that the extra pipe-size is going to result in fibre which is cheap (on a band-width basis), and that will catapult north america back to/near the front of the tech curve... I've read other people post from other places (europe asia) that have lots more bandwidth for lots less money then we do here.
Bandwidth isn't expensive once you have the correct-tech pipe in place.
accepting that people don't really need millions for doing what they love.
I do not accept that. As a musician, I should have the opportunity to do what I love AND make millions. It is not and should not be a binary choice.
I don't read PP as saying an artist is precluded from making millions, just that making millions is more incentive than is required.
As many actors and musicians start off waiting tables making in the order of $20-$30k per year it is not unreasonable to assume that if they can make $50k acting/singing/arting then there is a $20-$30k incentive to do this over waiting tables.
Even if suddenly our entire artistic talent pool came from lawyers the definition of economic incentive would still kick in 'round the $100k-$250k mark which is still far less than the millions that the current system pays mid-to-high-end artists.
DRM is inherently wrong. Both from a business stance as well as a freedom stance.
DRM on music has only hurt paying customers.
DRM on music has never stopped a single determined pirate.
DRM makes the pirate download not only cheaper but in fact a better product.
Consumers typically don't spend more to get less for a long time.
Having an adverserial relationship with paying customers is never a good strategy. Businesses spend millions trying to convince you to like them, and treating your customers like criminals eliminates any goodwill you can generate. If this business was selling cars, bookshelves or screwdrivers the public would have abandoned them a long time ago. It is only because they hold our culture hostage that they can continue to behave the way that they are.
e-music is now the second largest e-tailer of music and is DRM-free... figure that into the equation.
I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when talking about this sort of thing is the required returns for artists to become interested, or to achieve an economic incentive.
Todays rock-stars were serving beer for eight-bucks an hour before they scored it large. They can easily make $20-$30k touring and playing or selling their own CDs (on-line and at shows).
If the artist puts on even 200 shows in a year and needs to earn (5 guys * $30k = $150k / 200) only $750 per show. Total.
A decent bar-band can put 1000 people at $30+ each, so the bar can (and does) pay much more than $750...
Discussing with people in the bar business, a band such as this might get paid in the order of $15,000... so 200 shows is an income of $3-million... even divied up amongst 5 guys this is $600,000 each per year. I don't know what you make, but I could be incented to tour and create for $600k.
Do they start at this income? hell no. They just might play for $500 a night at the beginning and only get 50 gigs in a year (or less)... that's why they have other jobs at the start. If people like what they hear then they get to play more, and get paid more.
Also, it's typically sub-20yr olds who start out... making $5000 a year playing music is not far off what they can make flipping burgers.. and it's a lot more fun.
...And the arena bands... some 18,000 people at maybe $60 each is
over a million dollar gross PER NIGHT....and the Madonna's and such who can charge in the hundreds of dollers per seat...well, the income just multiplied.
Just look at Ogg Vorbis, none of the big manufacturers support it
I picked the Samsung YP-C1 for precisely the reason that it supports ogg...
I'll agree that ogg isn't a popular format for the Big Boys, but Samsung is pretty much one of the Big Boys now...
friendly fsker, huh. you must work in the music biz.:)
If you have a point, why don't you grow some balls and make it?
I think the definition of the word *was* the point. Since you claim you know what the meaning is, it surprises me the distinction you made in your previous post.
which isn't at all true in the context of rivalrous goods. Absolutely nothing is lost in the sharing of non-rivalrous goods.
The problem is (imho & based on how I read your other posts) that you've bought into the false notion that intellectual monopoly is required to generate content and cause creativity. But this is clearly false. Humans created long before these artificial barriers to market were introduced, and will continue to innovate long after they've been dropped.
from your previous post
They produce the music so they can make a profit. I'm sure it would be great if everyone worked for free, but they don't.
So long as we're clear that the 'they' in this sentence is the recording industry: not the artist.
The (sic) produce it knowing that they can sell it with certain conditions attached. Then they sell it with those conditions attached.
Sure, and the original condition was a bargain between publishers and the public. A 17yr right to be the only seller of said works was granted in the hopes of creating a larger and richer commons. The purpose was to enrich the commons, not the corporation. But they've renegged: They have pushed copyright into effectively being forever. And that doesn't enrich the commons. I've read that some 80% of recorded music is unavailable for purchase. Locked away by copyright, held back because the 'owner' feels they can't make a profit selling it.
...and the latest copyright extensions are retroactive to boot,...just how does granting a longer monopoly incent-to-be-created works that are already created ???
Then people start to claim their "freedom" is being violated, and that they have the right to unilaterally violate those conditions.
Well, TPMs do violate the freedoms. Being able to transfer/time&space-shift content is legal, and 'they' are doing an end-run on those rights by way of anti-circumvention laws...so i think that there is definately some truth to this.
Sure, music companies "should" just "trust" people not to give it away to everyone, really, they can't.
Why not? e-music is now the second largest music e-tailer and doesn't have any kind of DRM. TPMs don't stop the pirates but do hurt the legit consumers. This isn't a "trust" issue, it's just bad business to be antagonistic/confrontational with your paying customers.
So what should they do? Just not make music for profit?
again, presuming "they" is the record companies, yup. get the f*! out, I have no more use for you then I do a buggy-whip manufacturer.
Or, you accept that the artist "deserves" a cut proportional to listeners, but that the "record companies" take "too much".
Musicians make their money touring. Not selling CDs. Removing copyright doesn't change that equation. Removing the record companies does change that equation.
Do you know how difficult, and what a crapshoot it is, to promote an artist?
I've read that (can't find a damn supporting link...) that the reason the labels claim they need to rake some 90%+ off the top is because they only get a return on some 1-in-20 b
Trust me when I say I am no fan of the RIAA's tactics regarding their customers, but at some point they need to make money.
Not really.
They only *need* to make money if you're interested in their continued existence.
I'm not.
What purpose do they serve? Really?
They have a couple of historic uses:
Scout talent
Pre-pay (but recoup from artists income) recording costs
Market
Distribute physical media to retailers
So let's review:
We only need to scout talent if we're looking to invest. Exit the recording company, exit their requirement to scout talent. Consumers can and do decide what they want to buy (albeit currently heavily influenced by marketing, see #3)
Since the artist still pays their recording costs (they do it out of CD sales while the record company starts taking profit out of sales) this is just a loan. It made sense once upon a time when it cost a lot to record *anything*. Since recording costs are now down dramatically (I have friends with semi-pro equipment in their basement....) it's more than possible to record on a budget.
Here in Canada a couple of the hottest new bands (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arcade_Fire) broke without a major label. We don't need to be *told* what we like... people can (and do) find music they like in the absence of heavy marketing. Radio used to actually have people who knew and liked music and spent their time listening to music and sharing it with people. People can and do go to clubs to hear new bands and then tell their friends, write blogs, post on/....whatever. In the absence of marketing we might actually have music the people want, not that which is most profitable for them.
The net. 'nuff said.
So no: I don't agree that "they need to make money".
If you extend the scope of patentable subject matter to include "everything under the sun, made by man", heedless of the warnings of economists (and others), you can damn well live with the consequences.
Except that it's possibly you or me that will live with the concequences...and I don't know about you, but I had no personal say in this decision and can have no meaningful say in future discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM-free e-music has now got the second-biggest market share for download stores
Apple imposes their DRM even when musicians ask not to have it applied to their music
If someone wipes a drive and is sued 2 days later, how do you prove the wipe had nothing to do with the suit?
> By contrast, our General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software
Changing the software isn't relevent if you can't apply those changes. RMS has always maintained his three fundamental freedoms, and Freedom Number 1 is the freedom to change the program and make it do what you want. Tivo doesn't respect this freedom. Well, it's still only applicable to software: it still doesn't cover the hardware in any way. It just says that if a key is needed to run the software that the key needs to be made available. If someone puts the key into hardware that's their problem - not the GPL's problem. And since the purpose of the GPL is to ensure that "If I share my code with you you must share your revisions back", shouldn't that suggest to you that GPL developers feel that the Tivo did an end-run on them? Hmmm
GPLv3 just clarrifies and further codifies what Stallman always had in mind. If Linus just wanted to share his code with others he could have picked BSD, which is more of a "here's my code, do what you want with it" kind of license.
This just hasn't hit something that the average consumer can understand and get inflamed about. And the problem is that as people become more accepting of something, the companies push a little further to see what else they can get. It's time to start pushing back. Nothing I'll use.
But I just couldn't bring myself to use it (even if it was available in Canada) for a number of reasons:
- the term 'tivoisation' is of course
...about the tivo. Companies doing an end-run on the letter of the GPL is unacceptable. The GPL is about freedom, and Tivo doesn't play nice.
- Tivo includes DRM. That's reason on it's own...
- ...but the DRM will be misused; even if by 'mistake'.
- ...and the DRM is forced on you in mandatory software updates
- The mandatory updates change the product after you buy it. How this is acceptable to anyone is beyond me. Like anyone would accept their 300hp car suddenly being downgraded to a 150hp car because GM was pressured by another industry....say the insurance industry.
- And of course anything else that they might want to do with their hardware (it's clearly not yours!).
Basically in short, it's not your hardware, even though you've paid for it. You pay them, and they change the deal after they get your money.On my to-do list is to build a myth box.
And I'm going to build it with open-source, because I'm going to install it on hardware that I own and therefore should control.
Giving an elected official money is called bribery and should be punished as such.
As others have stated here, a million dollar 'campaign contribution' is worth more than {a hundred letters, a thousand phone calls, ten thousand e-mails} from people who contribute nothing financial.
Sadly, and more importantly, the bribe is worth more than my vote.
How can democracy actually work when my vote is actually meaningless?
How can it be democracy when some people get more than 'one person; one vote' - they actually get to buy policy?
I think the best part is the " Therms of use " link...
close ... amex decided that you can't buy on-line pr0n with your card...
...and they seem to get tech - and what might make the geek take notice.
They were one of few majors I could find that made an MP3 player that played OGG format files...
Once encrypted I don't see how they can tell what it is (despite what Allot tech says) on a packet-basis. Maybe they can tell by traffic patterns what kind of traffic it is, but TFA is pretty light on details.
So any tiered pricing that worked based on ports would leave the ISPs ripped off (all my traffic would go over the cheap ports) and anything that reqires unencrypting traffic is unacceptable to me for so many many reasons.
I have no problem charging for the bits, or for sustained usage vs. peak usage or max usage per month or whatever, but not based on content. there's just too much potential for abuse.
Bandwidth isn't expensive once you have the correct-tech pipe in place.
As many actors and musicians start off waiting tables making in the order of $20-$30k per year it is not unreasonable to assume that if they can make $50k acting/singing/arting then there is a $20-$30k incentive to do this over waiting tables.
Even if suddenly our entire artistic talent pool came from lawyers the definition of economic incentive would still kick in 'round the $100k-$250k mark which is still far less than the millions that the current system pays mid-to-high-end artists.
Like these guys : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arcade_Fire
DRM on music has only hurt paying customers.
DRM on music has never stopped a single determined pirate.
DRM makes the pirate download not only cheaper but in fact a better product.
Consumers typically don't spend more to get less for a long time.
Having an adverserial relationship with paying customers is never a good strategy. Businesses spend millions trying to convince you to like them, and treating your customers like criminals eliminates any goodwill you can generate. If this business was selling cars, bookshelves or screwdrivers the public would have abandoned them a long time ago. It is only because they hold our culture hostage that they can continue to behave the way that they are.
e-music is now the second largest e-tailer of music and is DRM-free... figure that into the equation.
Todays rock-stars were serving beer for eight-bucks an hour before they scored it large. They can easily make $20-$30k touring and playing or selling their own CDs (on-line and at shows).
If the artist puts on even 200 shows in a year and needs to earn (5 guys * $30k = $150k / 200) only $750 per show. Total.
A decent bar-band can put 1000 people at $30+ each, so the bar can (and does) pay much more than $750...
Discussing with people in the bar business, a band such as this might get paid in the order of $15,000
Do they start at this income? hell no. They just might play for $500 a night at the beginning and only get 50 gigs in a year (or less) ... that's why they have other jobs at the start. If people like what they hear then they get to play more, and get paid more.
... making $5000 a year playing music is not far off what they can make flipping burgers .. and it's a lot more fun.
Also, it's typically sub-20yr olds who start out
I'll agree that ogg isn't a popular format for the Big Boys, but Samsung is pretty much one of the Big Boys now...
dude, you need therapy.... I'll catch ya later.
friendly fsker, huh. you must work in the music biz. :)
I think the definition of the word *was* the point. Since you claim you know what the meaning is, it surprises me the distinction you made in your previous post.
which isn't at all true in the context of rivalrous goods. Absolutely nothing is lost in the sharing of non-rivalrous goods.
The problem is (imho & based on how I read your other posts) that you've bought into the false notion that intellectual monopoly is required to generate content and cause creativity. But this is clearly false. Humans created long before these artificial barriers to market were introduced, and will continue to innovate long after they've been dropped.
from your previous post
So long as we're clear that the 'they' in this sentence is the recording industry: not the artist.
Sure, and the original condition was a bargain between publishers and the public. A 17yr right to be the only seller of said works was granted in the hopes of creating a larger and richer commons. The purpose was to enrich the commons, not the corporation. But they've renegged: They have pushed copyright into effectively being forever. And that doesn't enrich the commons. I've read that some 80% of recorded music is unavailable for purchase. Locked away by copyright, held back because the 'owner' feels they can't make a profit selling it. ...just how does granting a longer monopoly incent-to-be-created works that are already created ???
...and the latest copyright extensions are retroactive to boot,
Well, TPMs do violate the freedoms. Being able to transfer/time&space-shift content is legal, and 'they' are doing an end-run on those rights by way of anti-circumvention laws...so i think that there is definately some truth to this.
Why not? e-music is now the second largest music e-tailer and doesn't have any kind of DRM. TPMs don't stop the pirates but do hurt the legit consumers. This isn't a "trust" issue, it's just bad business to be antagonistic/confrontational with your paying customers.
again, presuming "they" is the record companies, yup. get the f*! out, I have no more use for you then I do a buggy-whip manufacturer.
Musicians make their money touring. Not selling CDs. Removing copyright doesn't change that equation. Removing the record companies does change that equation.
I've read that (can't find a damn supporting link...) that the reason the labels claim they need to rake some 90%+ off the top is because they only get a return on some 1-in-20 b
They only *need* to make money if you're interested in their continued existence.
I'm not.
What purpose do they serve? Really?
They have a couple of historic uses:
So let's review:
So no: I don't agree that "they need to make money".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous