if a business is using illegal copies of software, that company should be sued.
Generally I would agree. A company has a right and obligation to shareholders to hold license dodgers responsible. I also think the RIAA and MPAA have a right to sue people who pirate their media. However I think any copyright enforcement needs to be done on legitimate grounds - the RIAA and MPAA have used shady tactics to win cases against people they probably shouldn't be suing. If Microsoft is honest in their audits and suits, I think they're doing what they ought to be doing.
The problem is, from what I've read they judge the number of Windows licenses a company ought to have by the size of the company. If a company is using open source alternatives, I suspect Microsoft will still want audits to prove their products are not in use. Even if these audits only take an hour to put the paperwork in order, the company still has to spend time and money to satisfy the audits. I can't think of any other company that can demand audits to organizations that have absolutely no business with them, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear incidents of Microsoft doing just that.
I'm with you on that. I'll never vote for a president based on their promises, but rather what their record has shown that they stand for. Ron Paul has a record I like.
As far as the original question about privacy being enough to sway my vote: I think it's important, but it's not likely to be the deciding factor. If there's a candidate who is expressly anti-privacy, it would likely sway my vote away from that candidate, but if it's a candidate who is expressly pro-privacy vs someone who doesn't talk about privacy, there are probably other issues that would have more bearing on how I'd vote.
Defective by design is an anti-DRM initiative by the Free Software Foundation. The phrase, particularly here on slashdot, is virtually synonymous with DRM. I assumed (apparently wrongly) that you used the term with the intent that is generally associated with it. This interpretation would imply that you were suggesting the iPod's confusing file structure was related to DRM, which is incorrect, and in my opinion a troll. If you had used the phrase, "poorly design" which doesn't have the DRM related connotations, I would have disagreed with you, but not have suggested you were a troll.
Even ignoring the DRM connotations, at the very least defective by design implies deliberate limitations. The iPod's file structure offers benefits of speed via hashing, at a cost of not being able to drag and drop music onto the iPod. Since a large majority of iPod owners wouldn't even think to drag and drop music onto their iPod (especially as iTunes offers such a simple method of transfering music), this isn't going to be considered a flaw by most users. They chose speed over drag and drop. To me, this makes sense.
The same with your audio recording gear - it may be poorly designed but defective by design implies that the defect was deliberate. I don't know much about the specific equipment, so it's hard to interpret the manufacturer's intent, but I suspect this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate limitation.
I apologize for calling you a troll, I misunderstood your intent, but I do feel that your wording lent itself to that interpretation.
If all DRM did was limit the illegal distribution of copyrighted material, you wouldn't hear me object. Unfortunately it also prevented me from playing my legally purchased iTunes music and DVDs on my computer once I switched to Linux. Both of these DRM methods have been cracked, making them completely ineffective at preventing piracy, but I would be breaking the law if I were to use these cracks so I could continue using the media I've purchased.
All DRM does effectively is tie people to specific platforms. There's not a movie or song available for purchase that you can't find for free with p2p software. HD-DVDs and BluRay versions of most movies are currently unavailable, but there are hacks available that are allowing people to rip these formats, and I believe they're beginning to show up on the p2p networks.
Again, I have no interest in piracy, and in fact I blame pirates for giving the media distributors an excuse to force DRM on us, but I do hate DRM because it keeps me from being able to use my legitimate media the way I want to use it.
Way to troll. iPods not being able to drag and drop has absolutely nothing to do with DRM. Apple uses iTunes to simplify the iPod interface. Many average and below average computer users (the target audience for iPods) have to be instructed on how to view their C drive in windows explorer. iTunes creates an incredibly straight forward interface for putting music on your iPod. It also streamlines indexing so the iPod can find files quickly and easily, decreasing the delay between tracks.
The directory structure of iPods, while complicated, has been used by a number of third party applications. There is a program called ephPod that allows Windows users to manage their iPods without a iTunes, and I use Amarok for Linux to manage my iPod, which uses libraries from gtkPod, another program for managing iPods.
Nobody's forcing you to use an iPod if you don't want one, but I'm able to use my iPod without DRM on the operating system of my choice with software of my choice. Just because iPods are capable of playing DRM doesn't mean they're limited by the DRM.
I recognized the acronym, but I didn't know what it stood for. I know slashdot hardly qualifies as a journalistic publication, but even so I think it's bad practice to have an entire summary without ever mentioning what an acronym stands for.
Last I checked, there were 3 parts of the government, (though some of them are quickly becoming less significant). There's the executive branch (the branch referred to as "the government" in the summary), the legislative branch (congress), and the judicial branch (includes the supreme court). The appellant listed in this case is the National Security Agency, which does fall into the category of executive branch.
To refer to the executive branch as "the government" is incredibly misleading. Congress is now controlled by the Democrats, which means the president now has to get everything approved by a group with conflicting views. Then there's the judicial branch, which at this point is still trying to hold the NSA responsible. To call one agency of one branch of the government "the government" shows an incredibly poor understanding of hour our government works. For a while we may have been headed down a path where the executive branch was the only one with any authority, but thankfully this is looking to be less and less the case.
Thank you! It drives me nuts when people talk about anything that goes wrong in the US as though their country were perfect. If you live in a country that doesn't have any downsides, let me know and I'll see about moving my family there.
Am I happy with the direction the US is going? Certainly not. Be it IP laws, corporate protection at the cost of citizens, or the attorney general claiming that the writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the constitution, I'm not happy with the way things are going. But the great thing about the US is that it has a good (though not perfect) mechanism for changing the direction every couple of years. Right now, the technically inclined are noticing problems with IP. If it becomes significant enough to become a political issue, the country can change course accordingly. In many respects, our country has been in worse situations before, but we've always recovered.
With regard to the grandparent post, the US, like any other country, may fall behind in a certain area for a while. But we're not so stupid to sit on our collective ass for 20 years and allow the country to fall horribly behind the rest of the world.
I'd hardly call that recent. Since then Microsoft has asserted that Linux violates Microsoft "Intellectual Property" but has declined to specify what IP that would be exactly. I don't think anyone would claim that's to help patent reform.
This current incident also reeks of foul play, and Microsoft is going to have to turn around pretty quickly and say "Look how stupid the patent office is for giving us this patent," lest they look bad for the incident. If Microsoft is still trying for patent reform, it seems to me they'd be better off targeting ridiculous patents held by other entities.
So does this mean Microsoft is going to turn around and sue BlueJ for a patent violation, BlueJ is going to sue Microsoft for patenting their prior art (can you even do that), or that Microsoft is just going to sit on this patent so they can make broad claims about other projects violating intellectual property?
A few years ago I attended a panel on information security. One of the panelists claimed many computers are better maintained by the person who added it to their botnet than they were by their proper owner. Of course, the hackers leave themselves a way in, but from what I understand they're pretty committed to keeping other hackers out of your computer.
You see, someone making their living off producing strictly artificially scarce items is someone not employed producing real scarce items; ie, it is a net loss to the economy as a whole, which means we _all_ get poorer by allowing such abberations to continue.
A large portion of the economy is centered around arguably useless items that are artificially kept rare in order to spike their value. Decorative diamonds are the first thing that come to mind: they are controlled by a few groups and released into the economy in order to keep the values high. Diamonds can actually be man-made for less than the natural ones sell, but people like to spend their money on real diamonds, then wear them around dangling from their ears or around their fingers.
Another example is media. Entertainment is a huge industry. Music and movies can be exchanged at no cost to the producers thanks to p2p networks, but the industry spends tons of money preventing this so that they can be the only source of their easily reproducible products.
The fact that someone spends 20 hours boosting an account just to sell it doesn't do significant harm to the economy. Someone somewhere is working to pay for that account, and they're producing items. They clearly feel that it's worth their money to not have to play the first 20 hours of the game. Then, the person who is selling accounts takes that money and buys other real world items, contributing again to the economy.
Obviously, the economy wouldn't function if everybody decided they wanted to make their living selling WoW accounts, but if everyone decided they were going to make movies or sell music, the economy would be equally non-functional. Fortunately, the economy is pretty good at self correction. There will only be so much demand for account boosting. If so many people try to get into the business that it's not worth anybody's time, some people will stop and go find something more productive to do with their time.
I'd also like to point out that professional athletes get paid millions of dollars a year producing nothing of any tangible value. But people want to watch football just like some people want a rare item in WoW without having to play for it.
In short, if people are willing to pay for something, then it has an economic value. Personally, I think MMORPG games are a complete waste of time and money, but if people are willing to pay for them, they must be filling some want or need.
I don't think eBay is trying to keep people from selling virtual goods, they're just covering their own hide from legal retribution from the people who wrote the game. The argument, as I understand it, is that if I sell you an item from WoW I'm selling you an element of Blizzard's intellectual property. eBay could get in trouble for facilitating violations of IP. I don't think Blizzard would object to the sale of accounts, items, gold, etc. but eBay is playing it safe.
I wasn't aware of that. Sound's like an interesting system. Regardless, the point I was trying to make was that requiring Apple to license Fairplay is still semi-comparable to requiring Nintendo licensing the specifications of a console. If Nintendo decides it makes economic sense to license their system, that's one thing, but I don't think there are many people who would say "Nintendo has the only platform that will play nintendo games, the government should make them license their technology."
Music bought from iTunes is "iPod Music" in much the same way games for Nintendo systems are "Nintendo Games". Later, you may decide you want to use it on a different platform, and it may be available for said platform, but I don't think anyone would say "I own Soul Caliber on Gamecube, it should work on XBox too" (or "I should be entitled to a free copy for the Xbox").
I have no pity for people who buy music from iTunes and later decide they want it for a different platform. I've been there myself, and I blamed myself for not thinking more about vendor lock-in, rather than blaming Apple for tying me to the platform - I knew that was part of the deal when I bought the music.
This assumes they're actually connected to the internet. If all you're trying to do is make a bot out of somebody's laptop, you just have to get them to connect to you long enough to transfer some files. Eventually they'll figure out that there was something wrong with that access point, but most people wouldn't think the access point had infected their computer, just that it was down at the moment.
That said, if you can actually get a connection using such an access point, I'd say there's no better connection for doing dubious deeds.
Lots of people seemed to be concerned about how transactions will be rounded. Will something that costs $1.96 be rounded to $1.95 or $2.00? My big question is, what happens to those of us who seldom pay cash for anything? If I have the option at all, I pay with my debit card, so there's no reason I can't pay $1.96 even. Would rounding apply to credit/debit cards, checks, and other method payments that don't involve cash?
The argument could be made that if Nintendo would just license the right specifications, other companies could build consoles that play Wii games. My computer for instance would probably be capable of emulating the Wii architecture, but if someone created and distributed a Wii emulator, they would certainly get a DMCA takedown notice, and likely face a law suit. While I don't feel your argument of Wii games only running on Wiis is completely valid, I agree with the rest of your analogy.
The thing that irritates me the most about DRM is that it's illegal to circumvent. I have no problem with companies choosing to use DRM, and I have no problem with companies pursuing pirates in court. But when the DRM limits legitimate uses of the media and customers are stripping the DRM solely so they can use it on another platform, I have a problem with legal action being taken against them. Granted, if the DMCA didn't protect DRM there would be commercial investments dedicated to fighting DRM and it wouldn't last long at all, but I still don't feel consumers ought to have to worry about using their media the way they want to.
Doesn't anyone actually wait to hear how well something performs? I mean, if Product_X is getting great reviews, and it's something I'll use, I'm not going to wait until Product_X v2 is released (assuming the upgrade is free later). Likewise, if Product_X is getting horrible reviews, I'm not going to pick up Product_X v2 the day it's released.
I'll likely get flamed for my opinion on this one, but...
while the TI-89 is a very high tech calculator, it has one of the worst learning curves of anything I've had to learn. I had to have someone show me how to get to the home screen just so I could do simple algebra. I still haven't figured out how to do a number of tasks that were simple on the 83. I'd write a program for every formula that was thrown my way on the 83, I haven't been able to figure out how to write programs for the 89. Graphing (and analyzing the graph) is more difficult on the 89.
The TI 89 definitely has more features than the 83, but there are only two of them I've ever had any use for (and I'm a CS major, one class shy of finishing a minor in mathematics). My advice would be to use a relatively simple calculator like the 83 for most calculations, and stick with the computer for more complicated math. If one device tries to do too much with a simple interface, it doesn't do any of it well.
I'm in a long distance relationship, so I only get to see my girlfriend for a weekend every two or three weeks. I certainly spend more time with my computer than physically with her, but most of the time I spend on my computer I have a chat window up and I'm talking to her. We play some online games, talk to each other quite a bit, and frankly I'd hate to imagine a long distance relationship without a computer to help keep us connected.
This was several years ago, but it really happened. I can't swear that I didn't have to revalidate, but I'm absolutely certain I didn't have to call Microsoft. I might also note that this was before Genuine Advantage was in place, so results may differ today.
I suppose it's also possible I had a registry hack in place. I bought the original computer from a little mom and pop shop not far from my house, and they may not have been particularly honest. I was always under the impression that my copy of Windows on that computer was legit.
Probably true. I once moved hard drives from one machine to another and was able to boot from them, and I don't think I even had to revalidate. One machine was an AMD something or other, the other was a PIII 750. One had an nvidia graphics card, the other a Savage. One had 256 MB RAM, the other 128. Practically everything about the system changed, and if it asked me to revalidate, the number on the side of the machine worked fine.
I'd hardly call someone who can't figure out a packaging system retarded. The vast majority of computer users get software by putting a disk in their CD drive and following instructions. They might be able to download and run an executable to install software. But I don't want to begin explaining apt-get or aptitude to someone like my father, who is really quite computer literate. I would appreciate a package manager that worked better than apt-get or Synaptic, and it would make things so much easier for more average users who want to try using Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally I would agree. A company has a right and obligation to shareholders to hold license dodgers responsible. I also think the RIAA and MPAA have a right to sue people who pirate their media. However I think any copyright enforcement needs to be done on legitimate grounds - the RIAA and MPAA have used shady tactics to win cases against people they probably shouldn't be suing. If Microsoft is honest in their audits and suits, I think they're doing what they ought to be doing.
The problem is, from what I've read they judge the number of Windows licenses a company ought to have by the size of the company. If a company is using open source alternatives, I suspect Microsoft will still want audits to prove their products are not in use. Even if these audits only take an hour to put the paperwork in order, the company still has to spend time and money to satisfy the audits. I can't think of any other company that can demand audits to organizations that have absolutely no business with them, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear incidents of Microsoft doing just that.
As far as the original question about privacy being enough to sway my vote: I think it's important, but it's not likely to be the deciding factor. If there's a candidate who is expressly anti-privacy, it would likely sway my vote away from that candidate, but if it's a candidate who is expressly pro-privacy vs someone who doesn't talk about privacy, there are probably other issues that would have more bearing on how I'd vote.
Even ignoring the DRM connotations, at the very least defective by design implies deliberate limitations. The iPod's file structure offers benefits of speed via hashing, at a cost of not being able to drag and drop music onto the iPod. Since a large majority of iPod owners wouldn't even think to drag and drop music onto their iPod (especially as iTunes offers such a simple method of transfering music), this isn't going to be considered a flaw by most users. They chose speed over drag and drop. To me, this makes sense.
The same with your audio recording gear - it may be poorly designed but defective by design implies that the defect was deliberate. I don't know much about the specific equipment, so it's hard to interpret the manufacturer's intent, but I suspect this was an oversight, rather than a deliberate limitation.
I apologize for calling you a troll, I misunderstood your intent, but I do feel that your wording lent itself to that interpretation.
All DRM does effectively is tie people to specific platforms. There's not a movie or song available for purchase that you can't find for free with p2p software. HD-DVDs and BluRay versions of most movies are currently unavailable, but there are hacks available that are allowing people to rip these formats, and I believe they're beginning to show up on the p2p networks.
Again, I have no interest in piracy, and in fact I blame pirates for giving the media distributors an excuse to force DRM on us, but I do hate DRM because it keeps me from being able to use my legitimate media the way I want to use it.
The directory structure of iPods, while complicated, has been used by a number of third party applications. There is a program called ephPod that allows Windows users to manage their iPods without a iTunes, and I use Amarok for Linux to manage my iPod, which uses libraries from gtkPod, another program for managing iPods.
Nobody's forcing you to use an iPod if you don't want one, but I'm able to use my iPod without DRM on the operating system of my choice with software of my choice. Just because iPods are capable of playing DRM doesn't mean they're limited by the DRM.
I recognized the acronym, but I didn't know what it stood for. I know slashdot hardly qualifies as a journalistic publication, but even so I think it's bad practice to have an entire summary without ever mentioning what an acronym stands for.
To refer to the executive branch as "the government" is incredibly misleading. Congress is now controlled by the Democrats, which means the president now has to get everything approved by a group with conflicting views. Then there's the judicial branch, which at this point is still trying to hold the NSA responsible. To call one agency of one branch of the government "the government" shows an incredibly poor understanding of hour our government works. For a while we may have been headed down a path where the executive branch was the only one with any authority, but thankfully this is looking to be less and less the case.
OSDL = Open Source Development Lab. I had to look it up. Thought someone else might be wondering.
Am I happy with the direction the US is going? Certainly not. Be it IP laws, corporate protection at the cost of citizens, or the attorney general claiming that the writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the constitution, I'm not happy with the way things are going. But the great thing about the US is that it has a good (though not perfect) mechanism for changing the direction every couple of years. Right now, the technically inclined are noticing problems with IP. If it becomes significant enough to become a political issue, the country can change course accordingly. In many respects, our country has been in worse situations before, but we've always recovered.
With regard to the grandparent post, the US, like any other country, may fall behind in a certain area for a while. But we're not so stupid to sit on our collective ass for 20 years and allow the country to fall horribly behind the rest of the world.
I'd hardly call that recent. Since then Microsoft has asserted that Linux violates Microsoft "Intellectual Property" but has declined to specify what IP that would be exactly. I don't think anyone would claim that's to help patent reform.
This current incident also reeks of foul play, and Microsoft is going to have to turn around pretty quickly and say "Look how stupid the patent office is for giving us this patent," lest they look bad for the incident. If Microsoft is still trying for patent reform, it seems to me they'd be better off targeting ridiculous patents held by other entities.
So does this mean Microsoft is going to turn around and sue BlueJ for a patent violation, BlueJ is going to sue Microsoft for patenting their prior art (can you even do that), or that Microsoft is just going to sit on this patent so they can make broad claims about other projects violating intellectual property?
A few years ago I attended a panel on information security. One of the panelists claimed many computers are better maintained by the person who added it to their botnet than they were by their proper owner. Of course, the hackers leave themselves a way in, but from what I understand they're pretty committed to keeping other hackers out of your computer.
A large portion of the economy is centered around arguably useless items that are artificially kept rare in order to spike their value. Decorative diamonds are the first thing that come to mind: they are controlled by a few groups and released into the economy in order to keep the values high. Diamonds can actually be man-made for less than the natural ones sell, but people like to spend their money on real diamonds, then wear them around dangling from their ears or around their fingers.
Another example is media. Entertainment is a huge industry. Music and movies can be exchanged at no cost to the producers thanks to p2p networks, but the industry spends tons of money preventing this so that they can be the only source of their easily reproducible products.
The fact that someone spends 20 hours boosting an account just to sell it doesn't do significant harm to the economy. Someone somewhere is working to pay for that account, and they're producing items. They clearly feel that it's worth their money to not have to play the first 20 hours of the game. Then, the person who is selling accounts takes that money and buys other real world items, contributing again to the economy.
Obviously, the economy wouldn't function if everybody decided they wanted to make their living selling WoW accounts, but if everyone decided they were going to make movies or sell music, the economy would be equally non-functional. Fortunately, the economy is pretty good at self correction. There will only be so much demand for account boosting. If so many people try to get into the business that it's not worth anybody's time, some people will stop and go find something more productive to do with their time.
I'd also like to point out that professional athletes get paid millions of dollars a year producing nothing of any tangible value. But people want to watch football just like some people want a rare item in WoW without having to play for it.
In short, if people are willing to pay for something, then it has an economic value. Personally, I think MMORPG games are a complete waste of time and money, but if people are willing to pay for them, they must be filling some want or need.
I don't think eBay is trying to keep people from selling virtual goods, they're just covering their own hide from legal retribution from the people who wrote the game. The argument, as I understand it, is that if I sell you an item from WoW I'm selling you an element of Blizzard's intellectual property. eBay could get in trouble for facilitating violations of IP. I don't think Blizzard would object to the sale of accounts, items, gold, etc. but eBay is playing it safe.
Music bought from iTunes is "iPod Music" in much the same way games for Nintendo systems are "Nintendo Games". Later, you may decide you want to use it on a different platform, and it may be available for said platform, but I don't think anyone would say "I own Soul Caliber on Gamecube, it should work on XBox too" (or "I should be entitled to a free copy for the Xbox").
I have no pity for people who buy music from iTunes and later decide they want it for a different platform. I've been there myself, and I blamed myself for not thinking more about vendor lock-in, rather than blaming Apple for tying me to the platform - I knew that was part of the deal when I bought the music.
That said, if you can actually get a connection using such an access point, I'd say there's no better connection for doing dubious deeds.
Lots of people seemed to be concerned about how transactions will be rounded. Will something that costs $1.96 be rounded to $1.95 or $2.00? My big question is, what happens to those of us who seldom pay cash for anything? If I have the option at all, I pay with my debit card, so there's no reason I can't pay $1.96 even. Would rounding apply to credit/debit cards, checks, and other method payments that don't involve cash?
On those points, I completely agree. I hardly ever say that on Slashdot.
The thing that irritates me the most about DRM is that it's illegal to circumvent. I have no problem with companies choosing to use DRM, and I have no problem with companies pursuing pirates in court. But when the DRM limits legitimate uses of the media and customers are stripping the DRM solely so they can use it on another platform, I have a problem with legal action being taken against them. Granted, if the DMCA didn't protect DRM there would be commercial investments dedicated to fighting DRM and it wouldn't last long at all, but I still don't feel consumers ought to have to worry about using their media the way they want to.
Doesn't anyone actually wait to hear how well something performs? I mean, if Product_X is getting great reviews, and it's something I'll use, I'm not going to wait until Product_X v2 is released (assuming the upgrade is free later). Likewise, if Product_X is getting horrible reviews, I'm not going to pick up Product_X v2 the day it's released.
while the TI-89 is a very high tech calculator, it has one of the worst learning curves of anything I've had to learn. I had to have someone show me how to get to the home screen just so I could do simple algebra. I still haven't figured out how to do a number of tasks that were simple on the 83. I'd write a program for every formula that was thrown my way on the 83, I haven't been able to figure out how to write programs for the 89. Graphing (and analyzing the graph) is more difficult on the 89.
The TI 89 definitely has more features than the 83, but there are only two of them I've ever had any use for (and I'm a CS major, one class shy of finishing a minor in mathematics). My advice would be to use a relatively simple calculator like the 83 for most calculations, and stick with the computer for more complicated math. If one device tries to do too much with a simple interface, it doesn't do any of it well.
I'm in a long distance relationship, so I only get to see my girlfriend for a weekend every two or three weeks. I certainly spend more time with my computer than physically with her, but most of the time I spend on my computer I have a chat window up and I'm talking to her. We play some online games, talk to each other quite a bit, and frankly I'd hate to imagine a long distance relationship without a computer to help keep us connected.
I suppose it's also possible I had a registry hack in place. I bought the original computer from a little mom and pop shop not far from my house, and they may not have been particularly honest. I was always under the impression that my copy of Windows on that computer was legit.
Probably true. I once moved hard drives from one machine to another and was able to boot from them, and I don't think I even had to revalidate. One machine was an AMD something or other, the other was a PIII 750. One had an nvidia graphics card, the other a Savage. One had 256 MB RAM, the other 128. Practically everything about the system changed, and if it asked me to revalidate, the number on the side of the machine worked fine.
I'd hardly call someone who can't figure out a packaging system retarded. The vast majority of computer users get software by putting a disk in their CD drive and following instructions. They might be able to download and run an executable to install software. But I don't want to begin explaining apt-get or aptitude to someone like my father, who is really quite computer literate. I would appreciate a package manager that worked better than apt-get or Synaptic, and it would make things so much easier for more average users who want to try using Linux.