Probably after they start using encryption well enough that programs like QTFairUse6 become impossible to create. This will happen. Once hardware supports encryption, DRM will become many times more difficult to crack.
When programs like QTFairUse6 are around, people just "work around" the DRM. I tend to still avoid it because I don't want to purchase music and make these companies think that "consumers are okay with DRM".
The problem Microsoft faces is that every bust produces more people who are likely to look to alternatives, like Ubuntu. So they really can't go after their customers. They can only go after people selling it, but even then they face a similar problem. Would you sell legit Microsoft software after they just sued you? I would push alternatives.
This is actually the sort of copyright hell that we have been dreading. The good thing about it, as you pointed out, is that it raises awareness about copyright laws being ridiculous. Presumably this will lead to copyright laws eventually becoming an election issue, and then finally being overturned. This will probably take an extremely long time to happen, though, and in the meantime people will end up being treated very unfairly.
It does matter which operating system other people use, because companies like Microsoft and Apple take steps to ensure that as a Linux user, I can't communicate properly with users of other operating systems. For example, I tried to apply for a job recently, and the government department that I was trying to apply to sent me a Microsoft Word.doc file. These files are in a secret, proprietary format that Microsoft won't tell people how to open. They want to ensure that only Microsoft Word will open such files.
Another example, there's a radio station that I like to listen to online, and because they only offer Windows Media streams, I had to break the law (due to software patents) to play them on my Linux computer. Breaking the law isn't something I enjoy doing, and it shouldn't be something I have to do in order to not be excluded just because I am not using Microsoft software.
The problem isn't that people aren't running Linux, it's that they're running software from companies who are trying to exclude me (a Linux user) from being able to communicate other people (Windows and Mac users).
Why shouldn't Microsoft have to distribute their programs separately, just like other vendors? Why should Microsoft software get the competitive advantage of coming with the OS, whereas other software doesn't?
If MS went all the way and refused to sell any copies of any of their software, there's a real chance that affected EU member states would simply (temporarily) revoke MS's copyrights
If they did that, the EU would suddenly find themselves being described as "part of the axis of evil", and it wouldn't be long before the US tried to invade. The US wages war to ensure that their interests are not disturbed. Copyright is a huge export for the US.
Researchers at Microsoft have completed work on a prototype framework called BrowserShield that promises to intercept and remove, on the fly, malicious code hidden on Web pages, instead showing users safe equivalents of those pages.
What happens when you mix this with Digital Restrictions Management that goes down to the hardware level? What I'm getting at is, what if it's not malicious code that is being replaced by a "safe equivalent", but perhaps a controversial story on a news website, or an important email between governments?
In the future, he who controls the computers controls the world. Digital Restrictions Management will one day give just a few computer companies control over every internet-connected computer in the world.
Some people will respond to this with "ahh.. I'll just use a firewall". Those people do not realise that firewalls will contain DRM, too.
DRM is essentially just code that disobeys the user's wishes, and acts against the user, on their own computer. Most of us know DRM when we see it, but explaining the differences between DRM and regular software, and making formal definitions of DRM becomes trickier...
Presumably the search engine built in makes money in the same way Google does... targetted advertising. One would hope that (being a privacy-oriented browser) they don't store search data, but you never know, I guess.
Good points otherwise, though - this is nothing new, and not really worthy of attention. We already have an excellent Free Software browser. I'm satisfied enough with Firefox that I wouldn't really want to bother trying other browsers, just as I'm satisfied enough with Google that I wouldn't bother trying other search engines.
You'd be crazy not to perform some testing on all platforms. Small tweaks for each platform is a hell of a lot better than completely different code for each platform.
The problem we face is that most people are not intelligent enough to see the difference. Also, most people no longer understand the concept of freedom, and have ceased to care about it.
Because of the GPL, it isn't possible for a Linux company to develop the kind of control that Microsoft has.
Actually, it is. Due to the LGPL being used in most libraries, it is possible for a company to develop proprietary software on top of Linux. For example, if Microsoft had a Linux distribution, they could create MS Office for Linux, which only runs on Microsoft Linux.
I think the LGPL will eventually turn out to be a huge tactical mistake.
I was trying to word the post along the lines of the top-level post to point out how ridiculous it is to say "Kerala is a communist state - they like to tell their citizens what products they can and cannot use".
Slashdot Mirror
Probably after they start using encryption well enough that programs like QTFairUse6 become impossible to create. This will happen. Once hardware supports encryption, DRM will become many times more difficult to crack.
When programs like QTFairUse6 are around, people just "work around" the DRM. I tend to still avoid it because I don't want to purchase music and make these companies think that "consumers are okay with DRM".
The problem Microsoft faces is that every bust produces more people who are likely to look to alternatives, like Ubuntu. So they really can't go after their customers. They can only go after people selling it, but even then they face a similar problem. Would you sell legit Microsoft software after they just sued you? I would push alternatives.
This is actually the sort of copyright hell that we have been dreading. The good thing about it, as you pointed out, is that it raises awareness about copyright laws being ridiculous. Presumably this will lead to copyright laws eventually becoming an election issue, and then finally being overturned. This will probably take an extremely long time to happen, though, and in the meantime people will end up being treated very unfairly.
It does matter which operating system other people use, because companies like Microsoft and Apple take steps to ensure that as a Linux user, I can't communicate properly with users of other operating systems. For example, I tried to apply for a job recently, and the government department that I was trying to apply to sent me a Microsoft Word .doc file. These files are in a secret, proprietary format that Microsoft won't tell people how to open. They want to ensure that only Microsoft Word will open such files.
Another example, there's a radio station that I like to listen to online, and because they only offer Windows Media streams, I had to break the law (due to software patents) to play them on my Linux computer. Breaking the law isn't something I enjoy doing, and it shouldn't be something I have to do in order to not be excluded just because I am not using Microsoft software.
The problem isn't that people aren't running Linux, it's that they're running software from companies who are trying to exclude me (a Linux user) from being able to communicate other people (Windows and Mac users).
Why shouldn't Microsoft have to distribute their programs separately, just like other vendors? Why should Microsoft software get the competitive advantage of coming with the OS, whereas other software doesn't?
The thing is, even if there is competition and it's better, most people use the bundled thing anyway.
If MS went all the way and refused to sell any copies of any of their software, there's a real chance that affected EU member states would simply (temporarily) revoke MS's copyrights
If they did that, the EU would suddenly find themselves being described as "part of the axis of evil", and it wouldn't be long before the US tried to invade. The US wages war to ensure that their interests are not disturbed. Copyright is a huge export for the US.
Please understand that Microsoft are pirates who abuse their monopoly status, to the disadvantage of regular people.
My first thought was that it was a shill, too.
It means that you could now upgrade to GNOME 2.16... duh.
Ever tried to send a friend on MSN messenger a URL containing "download.php"?
I think of DRM as anything that tries to control users against their will, and uses encryption to ensure that it isn't disabled or modified.
I understand that DRM currently hasn't been used as widely as this definition allows, but it will be, soon.
Researchers at Microsoft have completed work on a prototype framework called BrowserShield that promises to intercept and remove, on the fly, malicious code hidden on Web pages, instead showing users safe equivalents of those pages.
What happens when you mix this with Digital Restrictions Management that goes down to the hardware level? What I'm getting at is, what if it's not malicious code that is being replaced by a "safe equivalent", but perhaps a controversial story on a news website, or an important email between governments?
In the future, he who controls the computers controls the world. Digital Restrictions Management will one day give just a few computer companies control over every internet-connected computer in the world.
Some people will respond to this with "ahh.. I'll just use a firewall". Those people do not realise that firewalls will contain DRM, too.
DRM is essentially just code that disobeys the user's wishes, and acts against the user, on their own computer. Most of us know DRM when we see it, but explaining the differences between DRM and regular software, and making formal definitions of DRM becomes trickier...
They are the leaders of a large community.
Presumably the search engine built in makes money in the same way Google does... targetted advertising. One would hope that (being a privacy-oriented browser) they don't store search data, but you never know, I guess.
Good points otherwise, though - this is nothing new, and not really worthy of attention. We already have an excellent Free Software browser. I'm satisfied enough with Firefox that I wouldn't really want to bother trying other browsers, just as I'm satisfied enough with Google that I wouldn't bother trying other search engines.
... so?
You'd be crazy not to perform some testing on all platforms. Small tweaks for each platform is a hell of a lot better than completely different code for each platform.
Use Simple DirectMedia Layer or Qt.
Read this, and use the FAQ next time!
He's the plaintiff, though.
Has any other US president ever done as much damage to the US as Bush has?
The problem we face is that most people are not intelligent enough to see the difference. Also, most people no longer understand the concept of freedom, and have ceased to care about it.
... and then what do you do when they start sending you .DOC files that will only work in MS Office 8?
Because of the GPL, it isn't possible for a Linux company to develop the kind of control that Microsoft has.
Actually, it is. Due to the LGPL being used in most libraries, it is possible for a company to develop proprietary software on top of Linux. For example, if Microsoft had a Linux distribution, they could create MS Office for Linux, which only runs on Microsoft Linux.
I think the LGPL will eventually turn out to be a huge tactical mistake.
I was trying to word the post along the lines of the top-level post to point out how ridiculous it is to say "Kerala is a communist state - they like to tell their citizens what products they can and cannot use".