While I do agree with your point, I do not like the comparison between prohibition and DeCSS, because theres simply nothing wrong with DeCSS at all. Breaking DVD encryption was done to access rights we really should have had from day one. Now, I think prohibition is pretty stupid, too, but it is more controversial. Comparing fair use to alcohol would give many people the wrong idea.
Okay, it's annoying as hell that we need to fight the DeCSS battle in the first place, but there is nothing destructive about it. The movie industry is attempting to take away our rights for their own profit; how is that a pissing contest? We don't think we have the rights to everything, we just want what's ours. The right to reverse engineer for interoperability. The right to fair use of a copyrighted work. If they get their way, you won't be allowed to make compilations of your favorite music cds or backup copies anymore. Maybe someday they really will be selling cars with the hood welded shut, and it would be our own damn fault because we could avoid that if we just stood up and said no.
People who don't give a shit about their rights being taken away will one day wake up and find themselves in a police state right out of 1984.
Now Divix tried to come out, but it was a late player in the game and we all saw what happened to that clever device.
*ahem* clever device? It was clever insofar that it was a new and original way of charging me even more money to watch a movie. It died because nobody wants to keep paying for a disc they went through the trouble to buy. I'm certainly not going to pay every time I want to watch a movie. I want to buy the disc and be done with it, I'm sure many feel the same. And forget about watching it at a friends house.
There's a difference between using Windows and being a Windows user. Although people who are Windows users may sometimes be geeks, I think it's fairly obvious that it is much more difficult, since you have to shell out big bucks to get a version of Windows that can actually do anything useful (like NT Server.. what's that at now, $1700?). Linux is exceptionally good for hobbyists for this reason. Plus you gotta spend even more money for a compiler of some sort, since Windows doesn't come with anything of any utility built in that can be sold seperately.
The joke of cat herding is actually a very old one. I remember a Far Side cartoon with that punchline many, many years ago. Never ceases to be funny, though:)
You know, most people don't bash Windows because they hate it. They bash it and hate it for the same reason: it's not stable. It crashes way more often than a modern OS should. If this doesn't happen to you, well good for you. You're obviously not doing anything taxing on the system, because if you were you wouldn't be here praising it. I did not switch to Linux because I hated Windows. In fact, I was one of the biggest brainwashed Microsofties there were. But the GPFs and BSODs got so annoying, that I began looking for an alternative. Naturally, I discovered Linux and have been happy ever since. Only since then have I begun to hate MS, because I finally realize how badly I was being screwed!
Your mileage may vary, but that doesn't make ours any less valid. I believe you should use the right tool for the right job, but Windows attempts to do everything for everybody, therefore stretching itself too thin trying to be a jack-of-all-trades.
When you try to do everything, you end up being best at nothing. Linux, however, is not monolithic and can be altered depending on what is required, therefore the same OS is not exactly trying to do everything, because the configuation can be changed depending on the need. For this reason, Linux is more versatile than Windows and can be fine-tuned to a specific task far easier.
It's not best at everything, not by a long shot--but it will be, that's the point. If there are people who need it to do something, it will eventually be made to do it.
There's an important difference between Linux and Windows security holes. Linux guys (the respectible ones, anyway) admit freely that Linux has it's problems. But instead of using some lame excuse like "all software has bugs" they actually participate in a developement model that is designed to make elimination of those bugs as easy as possible.
The thing that puts Linux users off so much about Microsoft is not the bugs themselves, but M$'s constant dishonesty about them. They hype Windows as being "secure, scalable and flexible!" while releasing service pack after service pack that suggest otherwise. If it has bugs, say so! Linux developers do, and that's why we like them and not M$. It's not a double standard, it's a dislike of liars. There's a quote from Microsoft that I think is particularily relevent:
"Our system is already Y2K compliant but you can improve your Y2K compliance by using the special CD, which carries out some minor fixes."
The evil h4x0r5 have cracked our code, and are out to steal our property!!!
Two, beyond a doubt. You see, this was began by Xing but the blame would also fall on the DVD cartel because it was their gross incompetence that made the cracking so easy. If they were using a decent encryption algorythm, we most likely would still only have Xing's key, which could easily be removed from future movie releases. The fact that they used 40-bit encryption (that can be brute forced in less than eighteen seconds on an average desktop system) is what made brute-forcing the remaining keys so easy. There is going to be a lot of ass-covering going on as they attempt to shift the blame to evil pirates.
You know, with the recent barage of stupid lawsuits being announced, it's actually quite refreshing to see an article with some sanity prevailing. I was really starting to get depressed, but the Motley Fool seems to have brightened my day up a bit:)
...so to modify IE5 you have to write a completely new shell for it? I think he was referring to some minor tweaks that would make it more useful, not rewriting anything.
AOL! Remeber, the single reason they chose IE over NS was IE's ability to be imbedded into other applications just by dropping in the appropriate dll's. Previous versions of NS do not have this feature, thus they were not considered. Mozilla, however, employs the Gecko rendering engine which can be embedded just like IE, and since AOL owns Netscape, they will undoubtedly drop IE in favor of Mozilla in a heartbeat. I suppose there could be an ugly confrontation between AOL and M$ regarding M$'s inclusion of AOL in the base install of Winblows, but if there is any company out there that could take M$ head-on, it's deffinetly AOL/Time Warner, no? And a stunt like that would be poorly timed for Microsoft considering a certain pending lawsuit...
What about those "this site best viewed with IE" buttons? The only reason to add something like that would be if you used proprietary HTMl tags that only work with that browser--hence no one includes IE in the category of standards compliant browsers. I know for a fact that there are proprietary IE tags. Microsoft is just as bad as Netscape was in polluting standards. (Or "decommoditization of protocols" as M$ likes to put it:)
As many reasons as there were to hate Netscape "back in the day" before they got clobbered, they have deffinitely got their act together. First they not only give away their browser (true, they were forced to... but still) and then they go one step further and release the source. (That which is theirs to release, that is). Now they are producing a completely standards compliant browser, no more extensions. And it is sure to catch on, too, due to AOL (can you say "instant dominant market share"?). Good for you, Netscape.
Think for a minute who the largest group of users of Mozilla will be: AOL. That's right, AOL owns Netwscape and once Mozilla is done they would be silly not to integrate it into the AOL client. You see, the ability of IE's rendering engine to be imbedded into another program without the standalone interface of a web browser was the single reason why AOL chose IE instead of Netscape--despite the fact that they own the latter. Once Gecko is finished, I am positive that they will exorcise IE and switch over to Mozilla as their interface.
Well, these people (AOLers) can't be bothered to install separate programs for all their needs, they want instant total functionality with a minimum of fuss, and Mozilla will fill that position.
Now, it's great that they are releasing it on all sorts of platforms so geeks like you or I can browse the web in harmony from Linux, but they have to make Mozilla with AOLers in mind.
Of course they will. That's how Open Source works, does it not? The catch is, however, that they cannot close the source once it's open. So, even if they do sell it, we can still get ahold of the code for free:)
Besides, they will likely be giving as good as they get. IRIX is a very high end system, and it would be cool to have some of those features released for Linux (such as xfs, for beginners. In fact, they already have a sample code release for it). SGI has to move towards the low-end because that's where most people are going. Movie studios, for instance, are beginning to favor farms of Linux boxen to render films as opposed to just one big-ass server.
And that's not always a bad thing! Shooting someone in self-defense is a hell of a lot better than being killed. Handguns are the easiest form to store, since a shotgun would most times be a little unwieldy, so handguns are the obvious choice. I'm not a gun freak, either. In fact, I can count the number of times I've actually held a gun on my left hand. But I understand that the right to own a gun is an important freedom, and taking that away would be more dangerous than it is now. If you outlaw guns, than only outlaws will own them--how would that solve the problem? It would basically neuter our ability to protect outselves.
Do you honestly think I would do something like that? No, at the time I bought the hardware I was running Windows. I have since switched to Linux, and that is why I'm stuck with useless hardware.
I have payed for a DVD player! I paid for a DVD ROM for my computer, and a DVD decorder card. Anyone who intends on playing DVDs on their computer must have at least the ROM. You see, we paid for the hardware, we own the discs, we can't play them and if we try they're calling it illegal! This is why we're so pissed. I shelled out aprox. $250 for the hardware and $20 a pop for the discs, and the CCA is trying to render my equipment useless on the sole grounds that I do not use Windows.
As for the IEEE thing, don't quote me. I'm assuming it's IEEE, as logically it would be... I'll have to check on that tho. If it is IEEE, then it is public domain. (btw, I'm referring to the hardware, not the encryption)
Tying one product to another (i.e., making you pay for one procuct in order to use another that you would otherwise not need or want) in order to enforce a monopoly is illegal under antitrust laws, and this is what is being done with DVDs and playback software. The fact that they're lying about it (blowing smoke about piracy and trade secrets) almost proves my point. If they had solid legal standing on this, they would own up to it, wouldn't you think?
Also, CSS disallows fair use--and this is deffinitely wrong. You have the right to make backup copies of software, and copy protection alienates this right. This is why you don't see copy protection schemes in use with commercial software--because this has already been fought over in the courts back in the eighties. This is not a proprietary standard that only the DVD Consortium uses; it's an IEEE hardware standard I'm sure. Therefore, it must be treated as such.
It's not the content they're scared about. It the players. Think about it:
They are enforcing a tying arrangement between the content of DVDs and the players by licensing. Tying is generally considered illegal under antitrust laws; this was one of the allegations against MS: tying IE to Windows. Anyway, they charge huge amounts of money for these licenses, so not only are they (illegally) enforcing their monopoly, they are lining their pockets in the process! This is why they are threatened by DeCSS. If players became freely available, they would lose their iron grip on the market. This is why they are abusing the court system to scare off potential codevelopers of LiViD and other free players.
Slashdot Mirror
While I do agree with your point, I do not like the comparison between prohibition and DeCSS, because theres simply nothing wrong with DeCSS at all. Breaking DVD encryption was done to access rights we really should have had from day one. Now, I think prohibition is pretty stupid, too, but it is more controversial. Comparing fair use to alcohol would give many people the wrong idea.
People who don't give a shit about their rights being taken away will one day wake up and find themselves in a police state right out of 1984.
*ahem* clever device? It was clever insofar that it was a new and original way of charging me even more money to watch a movie. It died because nobody wants to keep paying for a disc they went through the trouble to buy. I'm certainly not going to pay every time I want to watch a movie. I want to buy the disc and be done with it, I'm sure many feel the same. And forget about watching it at a friends house.
There's a difference between using Windows and being a Windows user. Although people who are Windows users may sometimes be geeks, I think it's fairly obvious that it is much more difficult, since you have to shell out big bucks to get a version of Windows that can actually do anything useful (like NT Server.. what's that at now, $1700?). Linux is exceptionally good for hobbyists for this reason. Plus you gotta spend even more money for a compiler of some sort, since Windows doesn't come with anything of any utility built in that can be sold seperately.
The joke of cat herding is actually a very old one. I remember a Far Side cartoon with that punchline many, many years ago. Never ceases to be funny, though :)
No, my facts are all based off of my own experience. I have been using DOS/Windows for almost eight years, and I do not miss it one bit.
Your mileage may vary, but that doesn't make ours any less valid. I believe you should use the right tool for the right job, but Windows attempts to do everything for everybody, therefore stretching itself too thin trying to be a jack-of-all-trades.
When you try to do everything, you end up being best at nothing. Linux, however, is not monolithic and can be altered depending on what is required, therefore the same OS is not exactly trying to do everything, because the configuation can be changed depending on the need. For this reason, Linux is more versatile than Windows and can be fine-tuned to a specific task far easier.
It's not best at everything, not by a long shot--but it will be, that's the point. If there are people who need it to do something, it will eventually be made to do it.
The thing that puts Linux users off so much about Microsoft is not the bugs themselves, but M$'s constant dishonesty about them. They hype Windows as being "secure, scalable and flexible!" while releasing service pack after service pack that suggest otherwise. If it has bugs, say so! Linux developers do, and that's why we like them and not M$. It's not a double standard, it's a dislike of liars. There's a quote from Microsoft that I think is particularily relevent:
"Our system is already Y2K compliant but you can improve your Y2K compliance by using the special CD, which carries out some minor fixes."
Two, beyond a doubt. You see, this was began by Xing but the blame would also fall on the DVD cartel because it was their gross incompetence that made the cracking so easy. If they were using a decent encryption algorythm, we most likely would still only have Xing's key, which could easily be removed from future movie releases. The fact that they used 40-bit encryption (that can be brute forced in less than eighteen seconds on an average desktop system) is what made brute-forcing the remaining keys so easy. There is going to be a lot of ass-covering going on as they attempt to shift the blame to evil pirates.
You know, with the recent barage of stupid lawsuits being announced, it's actually quite refreshing to see an article with some sanity prevailing. I was really starting to get depressed, but the Motley Fool seems to have brightened my day up a bit :)
...so to modify IE5 you have to write a completely new shell for it? I think he was referring to some minor tweaks that would make it more useful, not rewriting anything.
Well, nobody ever said Netscape was standards compliant. Mozilla is, and once it becomes popular, maybe you won't have to use those anymore ;)
Are you using the Windows version? The Linux version of M13 on my box has copy, only its alt-C
AOL! Remeber, the single reason they chose IE over NS was IE's ability to be imbedded into other applications just by dropping in the appropriate dll's. Previous versions of NS do not have this feature, thus they were not considered. Mozilla, however, employs the Gecko rendering engine which can be embedded just like IE, and since AOL owns Netscape, they will undoubtedly drop IE in favor of Mozilla in a heartbeat. I suppose there could be an ugly confrontation between AOL and M$ regarding M$'s inclusion of AOL in the base install of Winblows, but if there is any company out there that could take M$ head-on, it's deffinetly AOL/Time Warner, no? And a stunt like that would be poorly timed for Microsoft considering a certain pending lawsuit...
Better than one watt running at 700 Mhz? Do tell.
As many reasons as there were to hate Netscape "back in the day" before they got clobbered, they have deffinitely got their act together. First they not only give away their browser (true, they were forced to... but still) and then they go one step further and release the source. (That which is theirs to release, that is). Now they are producing a completely standards compliant browser, no more extensions. And it is sure to catch on, too, due to AOL (can you say "instant dominant market share"?). Good for you, Netscape.
Well, these people (AOLers) can't be bothered to install separate programs for all their needs, they want instant total functionality with a minimum of fuss, and Mozilla will fill that position.
Now, it's great that they are releasing it on all sorts of platforms so geeks like you or I can browse the web in harmony from Linux, but they have to make Mozilla with AOLers in mind.
Besides, they will likely be giving as good as they get. IRIX is a very high end system, and it would be cool to have some of those features released for Linux (such as xfs, for beginners. In fact, they already have a sample code release for it). SGI has to move towards the low-end because that's where most people are going. Movie studios, for instance, are beginning to favor farms of Linux boxen to render films as opposed to just one big-ass server.
And that's not always a bad thing! Shooting someone in self-defense is a hell of a lot better than being killed. Handguns are the easiest form to store, since a shotgun would most times be a little unwieldy, so handguns are the obvious choice. I'm not a gun freak, either. In fact, I can count the number of times I've actually held a gun on my left hand. But I understand that the right to own a gun is an important freedom, and taking that away would be more dangerous than it is now. If you outlaw guns, than only outlaws will own them--how would that solve the problem? It would basically neuter our ability to protect outselves.
Do you honestly think I would do something like that? No, at the time I bought the hardware I was running Windows. I have since switched to Linux, and that is why I'm stuck with useless hardware.
As for the IEEE thing, don't quote me. I'm assuming it's IEEE, as logically it would be... I'll have to check on that tho. If it is IEEE, then it is public domain. (btw, I'm referring to the hardware, not the encryption)
"Select few"? I've got a copy of the beta, and I hate 'em. They'll give it out to damn near anyone who works for an OEM.
Also, CSS disallows fair use--and this is deffinitely wrong. You have the right to make backup copies of software, and copy protection alienates this right. This is why you don't see copy protection schemes in use with commercial software--because this has already been fought over in the courts back in the eighties. This is not a proprietary standard that only the DVD Consortium uses; it's an IEEE hardware standard I'm sure. Therefore, it must be treated as such.
ESR has responded. You can get the short essay he wrote about the subject here. Quite scathing, actually.
They are enforcing a tying arrangement between the content of DVDs and the players by licensing. Tying is generally considered illegal under antitrust laws; this was one of the allegations against MS: tying IE to Windows. Anyway, they charge huge amounts of money for these licenses, so not only are they (illegally) enforcing their monopoly, they are lining their pockets in the process! This is why they are threatened by DeCSS. If players became freely available, they would lose their iron grip on the market. This is why they are abusing the court system to scare off potential codevelopers of LiViD and other free players.