Except, if you apply a thought, you'd see that hes not comparing companies, hes comparing situations. You see, there is thing called an analogy, might want to look into it. Get with the program. Everything is an analogy these days!
Or should I explain the above in the form of a car analogy?
is that no game publisher would choose to make a game that looks drastically better on cards that few people have(or worse, the PC version ends up looking way better than the console one). Its bad business. (Not for GPU manufacturers though!)
But, OTOH, if you stick just to demos made by MS, AMD/ATI & NVIDIA all you have are contrived scenarios that use all of what DX11 offers and DX10,9 don't. I would personally suspend judgement till more games are released w/ DX11 support
Windows basic flaw is that it is derived from a single user system.
No, its not. Its really not. You seem like a non-technical user... You should get yourself updated on NT design. A lot has happened this past 15 years.
(For that matter, the concept of DLLs and for that matter dynamically linked programs is a serious operational and security hole that/All/ operating systems should dump. RAM and disk are cheap enough and processors are fast enough now that this whole concept should be dumped. Everything should be statically linked and only contain the permissions that the user specifically needs to operate and none of those should be administrative permissions.)
Wow.. Wait, are you serious? I hope you realize that if we implemented what you're talking about, after fixing a security bug in any library each and every app that uses that lib would require recompiling and pushed as an update for the fix to propagate, as opposed to just updating the dynamic library. Brilliant idea... Gee I wonder why they never did it.:P
One point you may have had with much older versions of Windows, was the retarded notion of keeping the same name for the DLL, regardless of the actual version (partly because of the 8.3 limitation) . But with SxS that problem is gone too. So sorry, there are no major "flaws" with DLLs as of now. Feel free to investigate and report back though !
Not quite. Why should Microsoft pay engineers to write software before they know who's going to pay Microsoft for it? That's just more gambling.
Well. So you want a system where every piece of work is delayed until content producers can gather up money to pay for the work ? And you think this can compete with the existing model in being enough of an incentive for people to produce better creative content? I would love to see the argument for that. A lot of the work is done on 'good faith' that people are going to respect copyright law.
It reminds me of a story that I read in a fascinating book by Kim Woo Choong (sp?) a few years ago titled 'Every street is paved with gold'. In that he recounts a story of being a poor newspaper delivery boy on the streets. He developed a strategy where he would run through the streets and hand the newspapers to customers without stopping to collect money as it took time to break change. After he ran out of newspapers, he would walk back and collect the money. He figured that while some people would take the newspaper and walk off without paying (or he would miss them on the walk back), there were enough of a minority to make his strategy still be profitable for the newspaper company.
Then you must have a pretty austere life. Every time you hire someone to perform a service -- cut your hair, fix your car -- you're implicitly "paying in advance". You might not hand over the money immediately, but you enter a contract and you're obligated to pay once it's done.
What I meant to say was I pay for goods when I have enough of a reason to believe that they are worth it, and I procure services with favorable reputations whenever possible. If its not possible to know before hand, then well, I cant do anything about that.
As for waiting to hear good reviews of a new producer: good! Nothing would stop you from continuing to do that. If you have doubts about a particular artist, then let more adventurous customers pay him first and see if he does quality work. New artists can lower their prices to counter that effect, or they can release portfolios to demonstrate their talent.
But this is fine on a small scale. If you require 200 million dollars to create an operating system, you cant rely on this model. Like I said, if you plan to propose a model that can replace the existing model you ahve to show that it can work first.
Nonsense. A different system would produce different sets of works.
Yes, but how is whatever you're proposing going to be better for the general population of consumers (other than the advantage of not needed to pay for distribution)? To be more specific what is incentive to produce better and better work? Is being compensated in proportion with distribution a bad thing?
No one said that was the only recourse. But piracy doesn't harm anyone (no more than boycotting copyrighted works) and it has positive consequences for consumers, so why not?
Sure, it's illegal. So is jaywalking.
There are many things I could do that I could 'get away with'. And I haven't claimed that I have never pirated anything. I unfortunately have earlier in my life, and I based that on faulty reasoning of being a poor college student among other things.
But I don't see where you get the argument that piracy has positive consequences for consumers. Lets say I like to listen to Radiohead and enjoy their music. If there were a large amount of piracy of their work and they got little to no revenue from sales, they would have to shut down and either leave the music business or come up with a new way to get paid. Now, if you're as successful as Radiohead, tons of people already know you and you can probably find another model that works for you, but if you're an upcoming indie band like "Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band" and you kinda needed the money to feed your family (heh, yeah that cliche never dies out !:P) , you're pretty much screwed.
But once he leaves the studio, my time spent distributing copies is just as valuable as his; if he tries to make a living from distribution instead of production, he's in a market where he has no advantage except legal bullying.
As I said earlier in the thread one of the main reasons they enter the studio is they are aware of the protections they would enjoy if they created something worth paying for. If they knew the information they created was going to be effectively worth $0 once they left the studio, they might not have agreed to record any songs.
Likewise, a scientist who measures the speed of light is valuable not because of the number he came up with, but because of the insight that he used to measure it. That insight cannot be copied, and it'll be valuable in the future when he's working on something else: when someone wants a new physical constant measured, that scientist will be first on the list of candidates.
Strawman. Theories/experiments are not developed/performed because the scientist enters into the field expecting to get paid for the result. They enter the field knowing fully well that they wont. (Well unless they can patent their discovery it I guess, but thats another discussion) Also, Theories/experiments are not analogous to movies,movies. Yes all of it is 'information' but its worth separating for clarity.
I agree, no single person is going to pay to commission a work like LOTR. But millions of people together will. That's ultimately how movies are funded today, just not as directly.
The Fellowship of the Ring grossed around $870 million worldwide. Varying ticket prices and multiple viewings make it hard to gauge how many people bought tickets, but it's probably somewhere between 50 and 100 million. The movie had a budget of $93 million: if 10-20% of people who were interested in seeing it had contributed an average of $10 each, they could have funded the movie in advance.
Yes, a lot of things _COULD_ have funded the movie. But they have never been shown to work. You think Microsoft is going to hire 1000 engineers and pay them $100,000/yr for their labor to create software and then just wait for $5 contributions from 20 million people to come in just so _one_ person with access to the binaries can then pirate the software to 600 million people? You might think this is a valid business model, but how about first demonstrating that it actually works and is sustainable? Yes 'donation' based software development might work for some people but it is the exception rather than the norm.
I personally would NEVER pay for anything in advance that I haven't sampled/'test driven' (in whatever legal way possible) or heard good things about from people who have tried it before me.
There are millions of movies, music albums, books, software and other items protected by copyright. If you want to show your economic model which can replace copyright law is sustainable you have to show that it can work for _all_ of them.
--
But the argument has shifted from "Why piracy is bad", to "Why copyright law is bad". I don't see why if you are opposed to copyright law, the only recourse you have is to break it.
The only conclusion you can make from that is that file sharing increases revenue, or at worst has very little impact on it.
Just because more movies were produced doesn't mean piracy hasn't or wont affect their revenue. If each and every person pirated the movie and they still double production every year then I'd agree.
If we can stop pretending that file sharing takes money away from artists (and even big media companies) then we can move this debate forward.
Nice strawman. File sharing _DOES_ take money away from artists. If you have a choice of $15 and $0 for an album that you like, quite a few people with questionable ethics would go for $0 (and thus taking money away from artists). However if the only option was $15, then some of those earlier people who 'bought' the album at $0 might buy it at $15 because there isn't an option. And some people who are honest about their "I wouldn't buy it anyway" rationale wouldn't buy it.
No. Its just drilling w/o knowing before hand whether oil is present underneath. If the content you produce becomes a hit then you ahve the 'oil'. Pirates do the equivalent of 'cloning' oil molecules and flood the market with them priced at $0 (or the cost of cloning) and in doing so, devalue the oil. However drilling is expensive. You need to procure services, material, equipment, labor, etc. You will get compensated only if you actually find oil.
Note that this is an analogy. If it were possible to clone oil. You wouldn't drill at all and just clone existing oil.
Please explain why law should protect a business model which produces tons of crap.
That is a side issue. And I would argue that there would be no need to waste any tax dollars protecting these businesses if people weren't pirating them in the first place. The piracy came first, not the legal expenses.
If they produce tons of crap, nobody would buy it and they go out of business. Everybody wins.
I didn't ask Lady Gaga to record "Poker Face", so regardless of whether I listen to it or download it, why would I have any obligation to pay her for that effort?
I see we're continuing the string of weak arguments. If you are not a consumer of her content, then you are free to ignore her work. Commercial artists record songs to sell them. If you are a consumer then you are expected to pay. You don't live in a vacuum and so as a member of society you can't just walk in and give yourself the right to pirate her work. Feel free to support record labels and artists that operate within an economic model that you agree with. If you don't want to live by the current rules, then be prepared to face the consequences. Society doesn't have to respect whatever rights you give yourself ad-hoc. You can't have it both ways.
You know what works just fine as an incentive in every other industry? The incentive of being paid for doing quality work. The best lawyers command a higher rate than the worst lawyers. The best carpenters get more work and get paid more for it.
And? Since digital content can't be technically stolen, you need copyright law to protect it. How does what you said change anything?
What makes you think artists can't muster up the motivation to do good work without special incentives that involve the rest of us giving up part of our free speech?
I have no clue what "free speech" is doing in this argument. This is about entertainment, not oppression.
Yes, it's a stupid framework that barely qualifies to be called a business model. It's like calling "lottery player" a career. The major incentive to continue buying lottery tickets is the hope that you'll win the jackpot... but you probably won't. Why play the copyright lottery when you could be getting paid directly for creating art?
They're on sites like Sellaband and Kickstarter.
Great. Problem solved then ! You can find like minded people such as yourself and as a group invest in whatever business model you agree with. Encourage new content to be created that isn't encumbered with whatever copyright law you disagree with. Why are you demanding that there shouldn't be a way whereby artists can get compensated by selling their goods and their rights protected through copyright? Surely there can be more than one business model so that it works for everyone?
The question is, will content producers adapt to that reality, or will they remain in denial with a business model that depends on being the sole source of copies?
That is irrelevant. If the current business model is a failure then the companies will die out. Thats how the free market is supposed to work. Why does it matter to you if they content producers stay afloat?
Copyright holders have an entitlement complex: they expect to get paid over and over in the future for work they did decades in the past.
What crap. A TON of pirated content happens to be recent movies, games, music, books, etc. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.
They think one big hit entitles them to a free ride for the rest of their lives
This is BS. Content creators invest millions each year into creating new content. A significant proportion of music,movies,etc are never going to become hits. The major incentive to continue pumping out new content is the hope that one of those investments will turn into a hit and pay off. That is the current business model in existence. The incentive of earning a lot of money seems to work in motivating people to create better content. Pirates are effectively destroying this incentive. Yes there will be people who will continue to create content and give it away for the "love of the art" or whatever (even they need to find a way to get paid). I haven't seen anything that will lead me to believe this is going to be anything but a small minority.
Pirates only want to be able to freely exchange information
So where are the "information wants to be free"-pirates who are hiring people to create content they like? Then they can exchange this information all day long on their terms. Why is it almost always "information" that somebody else paid millions of dollars to create? What is the percentage of 'legit' content to content violating copyright law? A cursory glance at TPB and other sites leads me to believe little to no popular content on those sites is of the legit kind.
The JavaScript engine in most browsers doesn't run on the GPU. Unless you're talking about something else. "Performance" is a very nebulous concept. Browsers that are quick at parsing complicated HTML and run JS well can call themselves fast just as browsers that can render complicated graphics (silverlight/flash/canvas) quickly can.
No, Whats _REALLY_ funny is I see many people on Slashdot wanting MS to respect Copyright law (i.e. abide by GPL) and then 3 seconds later turning around and condoning Copyright infringement of creative content.
Its clear that Ceznic partnered with Microsoft before publishing this study.
Yeah and I paid my expensive college tuition's too, and they still gave me an B+ instead of an A a few semesters back:( What the hell ! I paid them !:P
Hint: Just because people get paid for the study, doesn't mean the results are automatically flawed. You have to first demonstrate that the process was flawed and hence produced flawed results. So far you're just ranting about peripheral topics and haven't attempted to tackle the primary point. Why don't you come up with a better process or suggest a way of improving an existing process to measure browser security? Then lets pit the browsers against each other and see who comes up on top?
Technical common sense comes from years of Internet use and before that ARPANET. Did you work on the original ARPANET?
And why would I care what you did? I don't. Its laughable really, that you have to resort to argument-from-authority. This isn't about this particular story. My first post conveniently forked the discussion to a open discussion on the general issue of not having any optimal metric to gauge a vague topic as browser security. So far I'm seeing nothing but empty rhetoric and thinly veiled insults out of you. Maybe you're just a non-technical user that doesn't understand browser security and are using your "technical sense".
That study you linked too by IBM does not clarify the point you are trying to make, simply because IBM was also a backer of the Ceznic study.
Actually its a pretty good report from IBMs X-Force labs who produce as far as I know fairly credible reports. If you have any insight into flaws in their process let us know.
Doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't do anything for any reputation I might be trying to hold onto.
Wow ! You're on a roll ! Attacking me and stuff. How cute ! I helpfully pointed you to a study that in my view attempts to tackle this serious topic. Your reply indicates that you didn't even read the entire study. Seems like to point you to that piece of information was a mistake and simply served as a purpose of an unwelcome rant.
I would pit my common sense against any study you can find and my common sense will win every time.
Wow, your reply is getting more infantile by the minute. This isn't about you. It seems obvious to me now you're not interested in an honest discussion and are just looking for a nice flame war. I will not oblige.
Try the "common sense" study. I mean come on...any study that shows a huge slant in the direction of a company that is known to be vulnerable the majority of the time simply should be disregarded [period].
So there isn't a single study in the entire world that you trust or would recommend? Sounds like excessive paranoia to me. You position seems to be - Everything is biased, so lets ignore everything and use "common sense". I beg to differ. "common sense" only works for common things.
Analyzing which browser has a better security infrastructure is not common knowledge. I very much doubt average users spend time browsing seclists.org or the firefox bugtracker and other than such news articles, have no way of being informed about this topic. Wait, I take that back! Common users aren't even going to read this artcle. They wont even be on slashdot:p
Let me suggest a new approach.
0. Accept that any report will have some unmeasurable bias 1. Outline a threat model for browsers. 2. Pick a point system based on some vaguely objective metric. 3. Evaluate IE 8, FF 3.5.5, etc. based on that.
Find the results and conclude that for a specific threat model and a specific point system, Browser X fared better. Feel free to debate different points systems and why you think one is better over the other. Here is an example of such a report from IBM:
Except, IE is in no way integrated with the NT kernel. You're just parsing words of a random spokesperson (who is most likely not even a programmer) to your benefit.
You see, there are these things called libraries which this thing called IE uses. Some of those libraries make calls into the kernel, like say.. rendering fonts with the right kerning and proper sub pixel anti-aliasing using the display driver.
If you start connecting the dots, I think it should be clear enough from here. Or do we need a car analogy?
I think you missed the part about ARBITRARY CODE EXECUTION. It means the attacker can choose to execute any damn instructions they want and all of them will execute at the privilege level of the browser. Deleting/home/you/documents/important_report.odt isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
In Windows, the browser is part of the OS, one of the many reasons they have such trouble with security.
You seem to have outdated or incomplete or inaccurate information about NT or maybe you are non-technical user. The core part of the browser is reduced to a DLL (html rendering engine) in the system. I don't know what definition of "a part of" you're using but a DLL can only be loaded and its exported functions executed when an application requests it to be loaded or is linked to it during build time. The NT kernel most definitely does not request any IE dll's to be loaded at any time and does not depend on it. I'm surprised this myth keeps on being propagated. All it takes is a semi-competent nerd to attach a debugger to the kernel and see for themselves.
Now, The help system might load the rendering engine to display help, or Steam might load it to display the Steam-Store, etc, but since we're not talking about windows 1.0, memory access is protected across applications and each application runs in its own virtual memory sandbox making it (cross-app data snooping, etc) a moot point in general.
There are (or have been) many, many viruses for Windows that all you had to do was open a malicious web page.
Proving the browsing application is insecure and has a vuln. that allows arbitrary code execution. What has that got to do with the OS?
Or do you take the OS to be inclusive of all binaries that ship on the CD? I can think of so many Operating Systems that ship tons of software. If we add up all security issues of those apps, Windows will come out to have the least number of issues.
Haha, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that given the thick level of paranoia here. Even if I was, whats it to you?
That there are so many platforms for Windows says yeah, it's complex.
No, it doesn't. See what I did there? Saying it doesn't make it so.
Why do you think they have so many different ways of interacting with the OS?
Because each developer likes and prefers different tools and languages. And there is this crazy thing called using the right tool for the job. Maybe you're hard core but most people would prefer writing games in OpenGL/XNA/DirectX and not worry about implementing their own software rasterizer and shading pipeline in native C++/Win32 everytime they write a game.
So let me rephrase. The difficulty in developing for MS has always been the vague, multipurpose error messages. One component fails, maybe with a specific return code. The calling component doesn't return the returned error directly, because its interface is not defined to return that type of error. The outer calling component does the same thing. Instead of "function x returned invalid in pointer" you get simply "something somewhere was not correct." Documentation won't help you, only trial and error and beating your head against a wall. Or disassembly/live debugging.
Can you give us some examples with sample code? Thats not to say it isn't true. I've encountered my share of cryptic error messages. I'd like to see them to see what level of difficulty you're talking about.
It comes down to - if you wnt to make some truly solid and functional software, be prepared to debug at the KERNEL level. Userland won't cut it. To me, that's gratuitously complex.
Since most software shops in the world don't employ kernel experts who can debug at the asm level (let alone know how the kernel works even roughly), are you saying most software on NT isn't "solid and functional"?
But what do I know, maybe its gratuitously complex to you. I won't argue with an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, if you apply a thought, you'd see that hes not comparing companies, hes comparing situations. You see, there is thing called an analogy, might want to look into it. Get with the program. Everything is an analogy these days!
Or should I explain the above in the form of a car analogy?
is that no game publisher would choose to make a game that looks drastically better on cards that few people have(or worse, the PC version ends up looking way better than the console one). Its bad business. (Not for GPU manufacturers though!)
But, OTOH, if you stick just to demos made by MS, AMD/ATI & NVIDIA all you have are contrived scenarios that use all of what DX11 offers and DX10,9 don't. I would personally suspend judgement till more games are released w/ DX11 support
Well, TBH, its not completely irrational. You would need a bigger SMPS if you want to run a card (DX11?) with higher pw consumption
Windows basic flaw is that it is derived from a single user system.
No, its not. Its really not. You seem like a non-technical user... You should get yourself updated on NT design. A lot has happened this past 15 years.
(For that matter, the concept of DLLs and for that matter dynamically linked programs is a serious operational and security hole that /All/ operating systems should dump. RAM and disk are cheap enough and processors are fast enough now that this whole concept should be dumped. Everything should be statically linked and only contain the permissions that the user specifically needs to operate and none of those should be administrative permissions.)
Wow.. Wait, are you serious? I hope you realize that if we implemented what you're talking about, after fixing a security bug in any library each and every app that uses that lib would require recompiling and pushed as an update for the fix to propagate, as opposed to just updating the dynamic library. Brilliant idea... Gee I wonder why they never did it. :P
One point you may have had with much older versions of Windows, was the retarded notion of keeping the same name for the DLL, regardless of the actual version (partly because of the 8.3 limitation) . But with SxS that problem is gone too. So sorry, there are no major "flaws" with DLLs as of now. Feel free to investigate and report back though !
At least you can say that Windows has one thing on Linux. Installation of Trojans is automated. No end user interaction is required.
Huh? AFAIK Quite a few internet tools on *nix have had arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities. Its no different from Windows.
Mod parent up !
Good points. Although IMO a bit biased towards the Linux side of the argument.
Not quite. Why should Microsoft pay engineers to write software before they know who's going to pay Microsoft for it? That's just more gambling.
Well. So you want a system where every piece of work is delayed until content producers can gather up money to pay for the work ? And you think this can compete with the existing model in being enough of an incentive for people to produce better creative content? I would love to see the argument for that. A lot of the work is done on 'good faith' that people are going to respect copyright law.
It reminds me of a story that I read in a fascinating book by Kim Woo Choong (sp?) a few years ago titled 'Every street is paved with gold'. In that he recounts a story of being a poor newspaper delivery boy on the streets. He developed a strategy where he would run through the streets and hand the newspapers to customers without stopping to collect money as it took time to break change. After he ran out of newspapers, he would walk back and collect the money. He figured that while some people would take the newspaper and walk off without paying (or he would miss them on the walk back), there were enough of a minority to make his strategy still be profitable for the newspaper company.
Then you must have a pretty austere life. Every time you hire someone to perform a service -- cut your hair, fix your car -- you're implicitly "paying in advance". You might not hand over the money immediately, but you enter a contract and you're obligated to pay once it's done.
What I meant to say was I pay for goods when I have enough of a reason to believe that they are worth it, and I procure services with favorable reputations whenever possible. If its not possible to know before hand, then well, I cant do anything about that.
As for waiting to hear good reviews of a new producer: good! Nothing would stop you from continuing to do that. If you have doubts about a particular artist, then let more adventurous customers pay him first and see if he does quality work. New artists can lower their prices to counter that effect, or they can release portfolios to demonstrate their talent.
But this is fine on a small scale. If you require 200 million dollars to create an operating system, you cant rely on this model. Like I said, if you plan to propose a model that can replace the existing model you ahve to show that it can work first.
Nonsense. A different system would produce different sets of works.
Yes, but how is whatever you're proposing going to be better for the general population of consumers (other than the advantage of not needed to pay for distribution)? To be more specific what is incentive to produce better and better work? Is being compensated in proportion with distribution a bad thing?
No one said that was the only recourse. But piracy doesn't harm anyone (no more than boycotting copyrighted works) and it has positive consequences for consumers, so why not?
Sure, it's illegal. So is jaywalking.
There are many things I could do that I could 'get away with'. And I haven't claimed that I have never pirated anything. I unfortunately have earlier in my life, and I based that on faulty reasoning of being a poor college student among other things.
But I don't see where you get the argument that piracy has positive consequences for consumers. Lets say I like to listen to Radiohead and enjoy their music. If there were a large amount of piracy of their work and they got little to no revenue from sales, they would have to shut down and either leave the music business or come up with a new way to get paid. Now, if you're as successful as Radiohead, tons of people already know you and you can probably find another model that works for you, but if you're an upcoming indie band like "Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band" and you kinda needed the money to feed your family (heh, yeah that cliche never dies out ! :P) , you're pretty much screwed.
But once he leaves the studio, my time spent distributing copies is just as valuable as his; if he tries to make a living from distribution instead of production, he's in a market where he has no advantage except legal bullying.
As I said earlier in the thread one of the main reasons they enter the studio is they are aware of the protections they would enjoy if they created something worth paying for. If they knew the information they created was going to be effectively worth $0 once they left the studio, they might not have agreed to record any songs.
Likewise, a scientist who measures the speed of light is valuable not because of the number he came up with, but because of the insight that he used to measure it. That insight cannot be copied, and it'll be valuable in the future when he's working on something else: when someone wants a new physical constant measured, that scientist will be first on the list of candidates.
Strawman. Theories/experiments are not developed/performed because the scientist enters into the field expecting to get paid for the result. They enter the field knowing fully well that they wont. (Well unless they can patent their discovery it I guess, but thats another discussion) Also, Theories/experiments are not analogous to movies,movies. Yes all of it is 'information' but its worth separating for clarity.
I agree, no single person is going to pay to commission a work like LOTR. But millions of people together will. That's ultimately how movies are funded today, just not as directly.
The Fellowship of the Ring grossed around $870 million worldwide. Varying ticket prices and multiple viewings make it hard to gauge how many people bought tickets, but it's probably somewhere between 50 and 100 million. The movie had a budget of $93 million: if 10-20% of people who were interested in seeing it had contributed an average of $10 each, they could have funded the movie in advance.
Yes, a lot of things _COULD_ have funded the movie. But they have never been shown to work. You think Microsoft is going to hire 1000 engineers and pay them $100,000/yr for their labor to create software and then just wait for $5 contributions from 20 million people to come in just so _one_ person with access to the binaries can then pirate the software to 600 million people? You might think this is a valid business model, but how about first demonstrating that it actually works and is sustainable? Yes 'donation' based software development might work for some people but it is the exception rather than the norm.
I personally would NEVER pay for anything in advance that I haven't sampled/'test driven' (in whatever legal way possible) or heard good things about from people who have tried it before me.
There are millions of movies, music albums, books, software and other items protected by copyright. If you want to show your economic model which can replace copyright law is sustainable you have to show that it can work for _all_ of them.
--
But the argument has shifted from "Why piracy is bad", to "Why copyright law is bad". I don't see why if you are opposed to copyright law, the only recourse you have is to break it.
The only conclusion you can make from that is that file sharing increases revenue, or at worst has very little impact on it.
Just because more movies were produced doesn't mean piracy hasn't or wont affect their revenue. If each and every person pirated the movie and they still double production every year then I'd agree.
If we can stop pretending that file sharing takes money away from artists (and even big media companies) then we can move this debate forward.
Nice strawman. File sharing _DOES_ take money away from artists. If you have a choice of $15 and $0 for an album that you like, quite a few people with questionable ethics would go for $0 (and thus taking money away from artists). However if the only option was $15, then some of those earlier people who 'bought' the album at $0 might buy it at $15 because there isn't an option. And some people who are honest about their "I wouldn't buy it anyway" rationale wouldn't buy it.
We're off on a tangent. I am not arguing that consumerism is good. I'm arguing that piracy is bad.
No. Its just drilling w/o knowing before hand whether oil is present underneath. If the content you produce becomes a hit then you ahve the 'oil'. Pirates do the equivalent of 'cloning' oil molecules and flood the market with them priced at $0 (or the cost of cloning) and in doing so, devalue the oil. However drilling is expensive. You need to procure services, material, equipment, labor, etc. You will get compensated only if you actually find oil.
Note that this is an analogy. If it were possible to clone oil. You wouldn't drill at all and just clone existing oil.
Please explain why law should protect a business model which produces tons of crap.
That is a side issue. And I would argue that there would be no need to waste any tax dollars protecting these businesses if people weren't pirating them in the first place. The piracy came first, not the legal expenses.
If they produce tons of crap, nobody would buy it and they go out of business. Everybody wins.
I didn't ask Lady Gaga to record "Poker Face", so regardless of whether I listen to it or download it, why would I have any obligation to pay her for that effort?
I see we're continuing the string of weak arguments. If you are not a consumer of her content, then you are free to ignore her work. Commercial artists record songs to sell them. If you are a consumer then you are expected to pay. You don't live in a vacuum and so as a member of society you can't just walk in and give yourself the right to pirate her work. Feel free to support record labels and artists that operate within an economic model that you agree with. If you don't want to live by the current rules, then be prepared to face the consequences. Society doesn't have to respect whatever rights you give yourself ad-hoc. You can't have it both ways.
You know what works just fine as an incentive in every other industry? The incentive of being paid for doing quality work. The best lawyers command a higher rate than the worst lawyers. The best carpenters get more work and get paid more for it.
And? Since digital content can't be technically stolen, you need copyright law to protect it. How does what you said change anything?
What makes you think artists can't muster up the motivation to do good work without special incentives that involve the rest of us giving up part of our free speech?
I have no clue what "free speech" is doing in this argument. This is about entertainment, not oppression.
Yes, it's a stupid framework that barely qualifies to be called a business model. It's like calling "lottery player" a career. The major incentive to continue buying lottery tickets is the hope that you'll win the jackpot... but you probably won't. Why play the copyright lottery when you could be getting paid directly for creating art?
They're on sites like Sellaband and Kickstarter.
Great. Problem solved then ! You can find like minded people such as yourself and as a group invest in whatever business model you agree with. Encourage new content to be created that isn't encumbered with whatever copyright law you disagree with. Why are you demanding that there shouldn't be a way whereby artists can get compensated by selling their goods and their rights protected through copyright? Surely there can be more than one business model so that it works for everyone?
The question is, will content producers adapt to that reality, or will they remain in denial with a business model that depends on being the sole source of copies?
That is irrelevant. If the current business model is a failure then the companies will die out. Thats how the free market is supposed to work. Why does it matter to you if they content producers stay afloat?
Copyright holders have an entitlement complex: they expect to get paid over and over in the future for work they did decades in the past.
What crap. A TON of pirated content happens to be recent movies, games, music, books, etc. Your argument is intellectually dishonest.
They think one big hit entitles them to a free ride for the rest of their lives
This is BS. Content creators invest millions each year into creating new content. A significant proportion of music,movies,etc are never going to become hits. The major incentive to continue pumping out new content is the hope that one of those investments will turn into a hit and pay off. That is the current business model in existence. The incentive of earning a lot of money seems to work in motivating people to create better content. Pirates are effectively destroying this incentive. Yes there will be people who will continue to create content and give it away for the "love of the art" or whatever (even they need to find a way to get paid). I haven't seen anything that will lead me to believe this is going to be anything but a small minority.
Pirates only want to be able to freely exchange information
So where are the "information wants to be free"-pirates who are hiring people to create content they like? Then they can exchange this information all day long on their terms. Why is it almost always "information" that somebody else paid millions of dollars to create? What is the percentage of 'legit' content to content violating copyright law? A cursory glance at TPB and other sites leads me to believe little to no popular content on those sites is of the legit kind.
The JavaScript engine in most browsers doesn't run on the GPU. Unless you're talking about something else. "Performance" is a very nebulous concept. Browsers that are quick at parsing complicated HTML and run JS well can call themselves fast just as browsers that can render complicated graphics (silverlight/flash/canvas) quickly can.
Troll? WTF? He just destroyed the FUD being spewed by GGP.
No, Whats _REALLY_ funny is I see many people on Slashdot wanting MS to respect Copyright law (i.e. abide by GPL) and then 3 seconds later turning around and condoning Copyright infringement of creative content.
Its clear that Ceznic partnered with Microsoft before publishing this study.
Yeah and I paid my expensive college tuition's too, and they still gave me an B+ instead of an A a few semesters back :( What the hell ! I paid them ! :P
Hint: Just because people get paid for the study, doesn't mean the results are automatically flawed. You have to first demonstrate that the process was flawed and hence produced flawed results. So far you're just ranting about peripheral topics and haven't attempted to tackle the primary point. Why don't you come up with a better process or suggest a way of improving an existing process to measure browser security? Then lets pit the browsers against each other and see who comes up on top?
Technical common sense comes from years of Internet use and before that ARPANET. Did you work on the original ARPANET?
And why would I care what you did? I don't. Its laughable really, that you have to resort to argument-from-authority. This isn't about this particular story. My first post conveniently forked the discussion to a open discussion on the general issue of not having any optimal metric to gauge a vague topic as browser security. So far I'm seeing nothing but empty rhetoric and thinly veiled insults out of you. Maybe you're just a non-technical user that doesn't understand browser security and are using your "technical sense".
That study you linked too by IBM does not clarify the point you are trying to make, simply because IBM was also a backer of the Ceznic study.
Actually its a pretty good report from IBMs X-Force labs who produce as far as I know fairly credible reports. If you have any insight into flaws in their process let us know.
Doesn't make it true and certainly doesn't do anything for any reputation I might be trying to hold onto.
Wow ! You're on a roll ! Attacking me and stuff. How cute ! I helpfully pointed you to a study that in my view attempts to tackle this serious topic. Your reply indicates that you didn't even read the entire study. Seems like to point you to that piece of information was a mistake and simply served as a purpose of an unwelcome rant.
I would pit my common sense against any study you can find and my common sense will win every time.
Wow, your reply is getting more infantile by the minute. This isn't about you. It seems obvious to me now you're not interested in an honest discussion and are just looking for a nice flame war. I will not oblige.
What a waste of my time. Sigh !
Try the "common sense" study. I mean come on...any study that shows a huge slant in the direction of a company that is known to be vulnerable the majority of the time simply should be disregarded [period].
So there isn't a single study in the entire world that you trust or would recommend? Sounds like excessive paranoia to me. You position seems to be - Everything is biased, so lets ignore everything and use "common sense". I beg to differ. "common sense" only works for common things.
Analyzing which browser has a better security infrastructure is not common knowledge. I very much doubt average users spend time browsing seclists.org or the firefox bugtracker and other than such news articles, have no way of being informed about this topic. Wait, I take that back! Common users aren't even going to read this artcle. They wont even be on slashdot :p
Let me suggest a new approach.
0. Accept that any report will have some unmeasurable bias
1. Outline a threat model for browsers.
2. Pick a point system based on some vaguely objective metric.
3. Evaluate IE 8, FF 3.5.5, etc. based on that.
Find the results and conclude that for a specific threat model and a specific point system, Browser X fared better. Feel free to debate different points systems and why you think one is better over the other. Here is an example of such a report from IBM:
http://www.servicemanagementcenter.com/ExternalContent/IBMRBMS/SMRC/WHITEPAPER/68843/XFTR-H1-2009Final.pdf
I can make a pie chart show anything I want ...
I appreciate the exaggeration for effect, but, no, you cant. :)
OK. So what study should we look at? Why don't you post the right one?
Also, Slashdot has convinced me that in the interest of fairness I should disregard any study that is funded by Microsoft or competitors of Microsoft.
Except, IE is in no way integrated with the NT kernel. You're just parsing words of a random spokesperson (who is most likely not even a programmer) to your benefit.
You see, there are these things called libraries which this thing called IE uses. Some of those libraries make calls into the kernel, like say.. rendering fonts with the right kerning and proper sub pixel anti-aliasing using the display driver.
If you start connecting the dots, I think it should be clear enough from here. Or do we need a car analogy?
So what does it do if I allocate a couple of hundred megabytes and then don't use them?
Nothing. Other apps continue to use all of the memory that you aren't using. You OTOH, just burned a hole in your virtual address space.
In any other OS, nothing
I think you missed the part about ARBITRARY CODE EXECUTION. It means the attacker can choose to execute any damn instructions they want and all of them will execute at the privilege level of the browser. Deleting /home/you/documents/important_report.odt isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
In Windows, the browser is part of the OS, one of the many reasons they have such trouble with security.
You seem to have outdated or incomplete or inaccurate information about NT or maybe you are non-technical user. The core part of the browser is reduced to a DLL (html rendering engine) in the system. I don't know what definition of "a part of" you're using but a DLL can only be loaded and its exported functions executed when an application requests it to be loaded or is linked to it during build time. The NT kernel most definitely does not request any IE dll's to be loaded at any time and does not depend on it. I'm surprised this myth keeps on being propagated. All it takes is a semi-competent nerd to attach a debugger to the kernel and see for themselves.
Now, The help system might load the rendering engine to display help, or Steam might load it to display the Steam-Store, etc, but since we're not talking about windows 1.0, memory access is protected across applications and each application runs in its own virtual memory sandbox making it (cross-app data snooping, etc) a moot point in general.
There are (or have been) many, many viruses for Windows that all you had to do was open a malicious web page.
Proving the browsing application is insecure and has a vuln. that allows arbitrary code execution. What has that got to do with the OS?
Or do you take the OS to be inclusive of all binaries that ship on the CD? I can think of so many Operating Systems that ship tons of software. If we add up all security issues of those apps, Windows will come out to have the least number of issues.
Microsoft employee feeling defensive?
Haha, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that given the thick level of paranoia here. Even if I was, whats it to you?
That there are so many platforms for Windows says yeah, it's complex.
No, it doesn't. See what I did there? Saying it doesn't make it so.
Why do you think they have so many different ways of interacting with the OS?
Because each developer likes and prefers different tools and languages. And there is this crazy thing called using the right tool for the job. Maybe you're hard core but most people would prefer writing games in OpenGL/XNA/DirectX and not worry about implementing their own software rasterizer and shading pipeline in native C++/Win32 everytime they write a game.
So let me rephrase. The difficulty in developing for MS has always been the vague, multipurpose error messages. One component fails, maybe with a specific return code. The calling component doesn't return the returned error directly, because its interface is not defined to return that type of error. The outer calling component does the same thing. Instead of "function x returned invalid in pointer" you get simply "something somewhere was not correct." Documentation won't help you, only trial and error and beating your head against a wall. Or disassembly/live debugging.
Can you give us some examples with sample code? Thats not to say it isn't true. I've encountered my share of cryptic error messages. I'd like to see them to see what level of difficulty you're talking about.
It comes down to - if you wnt to make some truly solid and functional software, be prepared to debug at the KERNEL level. Userland won't cut it. To me, that's gratuitously complex.
Since most software shops in the world don't employ kernel experts who can debug at the asm level (let alone know how the kernel works even roughly), are you saying most software on NT isn't "solid and functional"?
But what do I know, maybe its gratuitously complex to you. I won't argue with an opinion.