It seems to me that telcos would also need a lot of new hardware, supporting more traffic shaping and QoS. I wonder if the tech manufacturers have anything that might help them with that...
You wanna talk about solutions in search of problems?
You mean it adds DRM to files I already have? Files not bought through their online store?!
Based on what I've heard, it's not true that it adds DRM to all files on it. The issue is that it wraps DRM onto files that you wirelessly share with your Zune friends - whether you want it to or not, whether it's permitted to (Creative Commons licencing) or not.
So far as I can tell, with the CD-copying levy etc and various other factors, there have been no cases of somebody being sued for downloading music in Canada.
It's not illegal here; or at worst it's a grey area. Attempts have been made, but the presiding judge (rightly, IMO) ruled that the evidence was insufficient for a warrant to get the names from ISPs.
Also, a government agency has strongly implied that the losses from P2P file sharing are covered by the money from blank media levy that the record labels receive.
Personally, when I want a commodity from someone I pay for it, but it's nice to see the law adhering to some sense of sanity up here.
"I'm the only guy crazy enough to do this, because I'm not allowed to turn a profit. The film is for hardcore fans who miss the character development of the original trilogy."
I don't think this guy understands Star Wars at all...
Well, better to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
You must be new here.
As a code monkey who, in my ever-dwindling spare time, is helping a friend set up a small business website - and learning PHP as I go, I appreciate the link.
Some of us are not lazy or even stupid - just inexperienced.
Bingo. They've been threatened with cut off several times I believe.
The threats are never really all that serious - but they haven't had an increase in a really long time.
But then that's one of the things I really liked to hear - when pressed to be frugal, they used free software to do the work that it was perfectly capable of doing. Most of my career has been in start-up companies, and you wouldn't believe how often they take the seed money and start spending it on Exchange, and ClearCase, and Oracle, and...
I mean, these high-tech startups are beeing out-geeked by the CBC?!?! It turned my world over a little.
The customer is hoping to not get a receipt, so they can get money. But in order to get the money, they have to point out they didn't get a receipt and probably call in a manager. So, the manager is "hiring" the customer, in Schneier's words, by enlisting him to start screaming whenever an employee doesn't hand over the receipt.
Okay...I can see that; although if no receipt now defaults to an interpretation of "free purchase" instead of "shoplifting", then it seems you trust your customers more than your employees. In which case you're probably better off to lose your staff and start hiring people at random.
So here's what the employer does: He hires the customer. By putting up a sign saying "Your purchase free if you don't get a receipt," the employer is getting the customer to guard the employee. The customer makes sure the employee gives him a receipt, and employee theft is reduced accordingly.
I've read that over several times and it still makes no sense to me.
Mod me idiot, or offtopic, or whatever; I'll take the karma hit - but wouldn't a customer be motivated to do the exact opposite? What on earth is the customer's interest in making sure they get a receipt?
As a Mexican person who prays for never needing to go to the USA (I just went once to Disney World and Universal Studios), I say, fuck the USA government.
How ironic, I'm an American who knows he'll never need to go to Mexico, and I'm always saying "fuck the Mexican government."
And, to make things better, I am a Mexican who knows that one day he is going to have to return to Mexico and I am always saying "Fuck the Mexican government".
I'm a Canadian...what the fuck is going on down there?
Personally I'm very surprised that the base system dosen't have a DVD writer
And the "upgrade" to get one only burns single-layer. I really want to get a Mac sometime soon, but why must they be the last people on the planet to provide dual-layer burning on DVDs? I can't find single-layer DVD burners in the stores around here.
The guy clearly is not a computer whiz - and it might be fashionable to trash his conclusions on the basis that he doesn't know what he's doing, but it's worth remembering that he probably does represent a fairly large pool of users; business people who are power users with certain applications, but without a good understanding of the computer system as a whole (ie. he starts "testing" the OS by visiting some websites).
Please don't get me wrong; I really like Linux - and had some years of working with unix systems before I tried it, but I too was surprised how much trouble I had getting some things set up; considering the marketing I was being given on its ease.
I've got a Linux network at home, and I have no plans to dump it; but I know several people who have computers and are considering an upgrade. As much as I'd love to recommend Linux, for reasons of principle as well as practicality (they don't have a lot of money to throw around), I simply can't. They're not up to the job of handling the OS.
That may not be the market that Linux is after; I don't know, but I agree with the author's conclusion (whose emphasis was removed in the summary): "Claims by some Linux publishers that anybody can easily switch to Linux from Windows seem totally oversold.:
A more likely scenario is to prevent the threat of Chinese distribution in the event of an Sino-US economic cold war.
I wondered if that was your meaning - as it seemed a more practical use (although I don't find either scenario very practical). Your use of the phrase "intellectual property economy" is what led me to conclude that you presupposed economic uses, rather than national security ones - hence the joke.
(The sarcasm was meant to be somewhat teasing, but not cruel. Apologies if feelings were bruised.)
Far more likely it's to protect America's "intellectual property economy" when it's cheap enough for private individuals to launch their own satellites to disseminate information under any laws they see fit.
You think this is meant to prevent satellite-level file-sharing? Like the RIAA/MPAA would say the word, and the government would fire a laser to take out someone's private satellite?
Wow! That might prove more effective than suing college students.
Re:Not to worry, true believers! They'll be back
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Probably not, actually. The labels that left, although they do have a few well-known acts, generally have small, relativly unknown artists in their stables... and those artists tend to be in *favour* of downloads as it increases their exposure.
Trust me, there really is some good in this world. Nettwerk has been one of the most critical labels of heavy-handed legal tactics. They're funding some RIAA defences, they were one of the first to leave the CIRA, and they aren't just a stable of artists that no one has heard of; Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne.
And they sell mp3s on their site. Not WMAs, not ACCs -- *mp3s*, no DRM.
I'm a cynical bastard, too, but there's actually a few labels out there that get it. Don't sell them short.
The quality of Disneys productions could only go up.
Or Pixar could go way down. I hope you're right, and that the Pixar folks will run wild into Disney - but it's a hell of a beast to tame. I'd actually fear that Disney would feel a need to "ensure Pixar's ongoing creative success" and then screw it up.
Just like when Dinsney's second golden age of animation was born (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King) - it became a valuble commodity, and the suits felt the need to 'protect' it. The next think you know, the creative guys are jumping ship, and you're left with drek like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."
So how comes the FSF can be pro-law but anti-DRM, given that they are different ways to achieve the same goal of copyright protection?
You don't have to support a strategy just because it has a legitimate goal. DRM does not prevent piracy and often infringes upon a consumer's legitimate uses. It is now creating security issues.
So, we've crossed the spectrum from ineffectual, to annoying, to dangerous. It's not good enough that it was originally supposed to be about respecting the law.
Noble goals are not enough, and the ends to not justify the means.
ThePlaceforitAll.com is the first to admit the hardware will not be supported by Apple, thanks to the warranty-warping modification work, but the software should still be covered. More worrying is the site's statement that it will not fix any broken iTablets.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that telcos would also need a lot of new hardware, supporting more traffic shaping and QoS. I wonder if the tech manufacturers have anything that might help them with that...
You wanna talk about solutions in search of problems?
Oh for goodness sake...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
You mean it adds DRM to files I already have? Files not bought through their online store?!
Based on what I've heard, it's not true that it adds DRM to all files on it. The issue is that it wraps DRM onto files that you wirelessly share with your Zune friends - whether you want it to or not, whether it's permitted to (Creative Commons licencing) or not.
An article about it at http://www.medialoper.com/hot-topics/music/zunes-b ig-innovation-viral-drm
So far as I can tell, with the CD-copying levy etc and various other factors, there have been no cases of somebody being sued for downloading music in Canada.
It's not illegal here; or at worst it's a grey area. Attempts have been made, but the presiding judge (rightly, IMO) ruled that the evidence was insufficient for a warrant to get the names from ISPs.
Also, a government agency has strongly implied that the losses from P2P file sharing are covered by the money from blank media levy that the record labels receive.
Personally, when I want a commodity from someone I pay for it, but it's nice to see the law adhering to some sense of sanity up here.
"I'm the only guy crazy enough to do this, because I'm not allowed to turn a profit. The film is for hardcore fans who miss the character development of the original trilogy."
I don't think this guy understands Star Wars at all...
Child: "Don't try to make your case. That's impossible. Instead, try to realise the truth."
SCO: "What truth?"
Child: "There is no case."
SCO: "There is no case?"
Child: "Then you will see, that it is not your case that changes, but only your argument."
Well, better to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
You must be new here.
As a code monkey who, in my ever-dwindling spare time, is helping a friend set up a small business website - and learning PHP as I go, I appreciate the link.
Some of us are not lazy or even stupid - just inexperienced.
The threats are never really all that serious - but they haven't had an increase in a really long time.
But then that's one of the things I really liked to hear - when pressed to be frugal, they used free software to do the work that it was perfectly capable of doing. Most of my career has been in start-up companies, and you wouldn't believe how often they take the seed money and start spending it on Exchange, and ClearCase, and Oracle, and...
I mean, these high-tech startups are beeing out-geeked by the CBC?!?! It turned my world over a little.
Four little words. Cold day in Hell.
C'mon - we've seen this dozens of times before. They'll support it. Then they'll add extra "features that our customers want."
Deja vu all over again.
Okay...I can see that; although if no receipt now defaults to an interpretation of "free purchase" instead of "shoplifting", then it seems you trust your customers more than your employees. In which case you're probably better off to lose your staff and start hiring people at random.
Anyway, I appreciate the clarification.
So here's what the employer does: He hires the customer. By putting up a sign saying "Your purchase free if you don't get a receipt," the employer is getting the customer to guard the employee. The customer makes sure the employee gives him a receipt, and employee theft is reduced accordingly.
I've read that over several times and it still makes no sense to me.
Mod me idiot, or offtopic, or whatever; I'll take the karma hit - but wouldn't a customer be motivated to do the exact opposite? What on earth is the customer's interest in making sure they get a receipt?
How ironic, I'm an American who knows he'll never need to go to Mexico, and I'm always saying "fuck the Mexican government."
And, to make things better, I am a Mexican who knows that one day he is going to have to return to Mexico and I am always saying "Fuck the Mexican government".
I'm a Canadian...what the fuck is going on down there?
I have a patent on it, of course...
Question asked, question answered.
And the "upgrade" to get one only burns single-layer. I really want to get a Mac sometime soon, but why must they be the last people on the planet to provide dual-layer burning on DVDs? I can't find single-layer DVD burners in the stores around here.
n00bz.
Please don't get me wrong; I really like Linux - and had some years of working with unix systems before I tried it, but I too was surprised how much trouble I had getting some things set up; considering the marketing I was being given on its ease.
I've got a Linux network at home, and I have no plans to dump it; but I know several people who have computers and are considering an upgrade. As much as I'd love to recommend Linux, for reasons of principle as well as practicality (they don't have a lot of money to throw around), I simply can't. They're not up to the job of handling the OS.
That may not be the market that Linux is after; I don't know, but I agree with the author's conclusion (whose emphasis was removed in the summary): "Claims by some Linux publishers that anybody can easily switch to Linux from Windows seem totally oversold.:
I wondered if that was your meaning - as it seemed a more practical use (although I don't find either scenario very practical). Your use of the phrase "intellectual property economy" is what led me to conclude that you presupposed economic uses, rather than national security ones - hence the joke.
(The sarcasm was meant to be somewhat teasing, but not cruel. Apologies if feelings were bruised.)
You think this is meant to prevent satellite-level file-sharing? Like the RIAA/MPAA would say the word, and the government would fire a laser to take out someone's private satellite?
Wow! That might prove more effective than suing college students.
Trust me, there really is some good in this world. Nettwerk has been one of the most critical labels of heavy-handed legal tactics. They're funding some RIAA defences, they were one of the first to leave the CIRA, and they aren't just a stable of artists that no one has heard of; Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne.
And they sell mp3s on their site. Not WMAs, not ACCs -- *mp3s*, no DRM.
I'm a cynical bastard, too, but there's actually a few labels out there that get it. Don't sell them short.
It was found to be in violation of various patents, not to mention an infringement of the DMCA.
Or Pixar could go way down. I hope you're right, and that the Pixar folks will run wild into Disney - but it's a hell of a beast to tame. I'd actually fear that Disney would feel a need to "ensure Pixar's ongoing creative success" and then screw it up.
Just like when Dinsney's second golden age of animation was born (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King) - it became a valuble commodity, and the suits felt the need to 'protect' it. The next think you know, the creative guys are jumping ship, and you're left with drek like "The Hunchback of Notre Dame."
You don't have to support a strategy just because it has a legitimate goal. DRM does not prevent piracy and often infringes upon a consumer's legitimate uses. It is now creating security issues.
So, we've crossed the spectrum from ineffectual, to annoying, to dangerous. It's not good enough that it was originally supposed to be about respecting the law.
Noble goals are not enough, and the ends to not justify the means.
I'm a writer as well, and a believer in the rights of content owners to be compensated.
I think it's been proven time and again, though, that DRM is a failed concept that actually hinders consumers more than it thwarts pirates.
Rights and compensation for copyright owners is an issue. DRM is not the answer.
ThePlaceforitAll.com: We break it! You buy it!