I purchased at least a half dozen Dell systems in 2001, mostly Optiplex desktops and a couple of Latitude laptops. The Optiplex systems worked great, and at least three of them are still in use, including the one I gave to my mother in law. The Latitudes were used by an advance team for a political campaign and they were badly abused, but Dell's support staff was great. Even when a damaged laptop looked like someone had dropkicked it, Dell fixed the computer quickly and under warranty.
One of those two laptops is still functional, even though the campaign's policy director set part of the case on fire after trying to get work done by candlelight... (I didn't have that one fixed. I figured that no matter how nice Dell's people were, nobody was going to accept that for warranty work...)
The problem is that nobody reports examples of good service, they only rant about the problems that they heard happened to a friend of a friend's sister's neighbor or something...
I agree... I own three Dell computers at home, I've given two to my mom, one to my mother in law, and I purchase Dell computers exclusively at work. The computers have always been reliable, and whenever I've had a problem the support has been excellent.
It's just a Slashdot thing... Some kids here feel that they are cool if they say bad things about Dell... It's the same with Microsoft.
Most of the major record companies have adopted a method of distributing musical content that is not encumbered by DRM, and is built around a standards compliant system that allows the content to be used in a tremendous number of devices built by any manufacturer.
As a side benefit, the musical content being distributed is also available in a much higher audio resolution than is available from iTunes or any similar online music store.
Musical content distributed in this format is easy to make backup copies of, and although it is still unlawful to distribute these copies to others, you can easily and legally preserve your musical library.
The format is called a "Compact Disk", or "CD" for short... I've tested the technology out, and it seems quite promising. Give it a try...
I also believe that an artist should have the ability to sell the rights to their music if they feel that it is in their best financial interests to do so. Most artists do not have the ability to produce, publish, distribute and sell their works as well as the record companies. A larger record company does have the ability to create more profit out of the artist's work, so selling the rights then becomes more productive and profitable for both the artist and the record company.
Do you feel that an artist shouldn't be allowed to sell the ownership rights to their work?
You are probably correct, it's similar to gun control laws in that the only people who are really restricted are the people who respect the law. However, DRM does cut down dramatically the number of casual copyright violations.
The problem with this discussion is that we haven't even defined the discussion yet. The people who are oppossed to DRM are pretty diverse, including people who want to be able to make copies of music that they have purchased, some who just want to play the music on their mp3 player, some who want to play a clip of a video for a classroom, and there are also people who want to participate in illegal file sharing.
Everything that I have seen suggests that the latter group of people opposed to DRM is by far the largest.
Find a solution that cuts down on illegal use, but allows legal use. At this time, DRM is the closest thing we have...
I think that the argument that he is making about the 8-track is in response to the common argument that DRM will cause people to lose the ability to access music that they paid for when certain manufacturers go out of business.
That argument can be compared to the 8-Track discussion in that if you find an old 8-Track tape of ABBA in the attic, a typical Slashdotter will get offended and claim that his/her "rights" to listen to that tape are being infringed because no players are available any more.
Fortunately I think that I have a copy of ABBA's greatest hits on CD somewhere around here... I'd share it with you, but that would be illegal...:-)
You have made one valid point... I was not clear enough in my statement about "don't listen to the music"....
The licensing agreements are generally about the conditions under which you are allowed to play the music or make and distribute copies of the music, not the conditions under which you are allowed to simply listen. The distinction may seem minor, but it is there. So, I would amend my previous statements accordingly.
The difficult part of the argument is that the bedsheet manufacturers don't have a licensing agreement regarding where the sheets can be used. The artists and studios that produce music and movies do use those licensing agreements.
To really deal with this discussion, there must be a way to develop a digital rights management system that is capable of stopping the people who just want to do filesharing and such, but still allows you the ability to watch your copy of Friends (perhaps even while you are sleeping on the couch under your bedsheets)...
But to get to that point, we need to separate the argument and recognize that many of the people who are claiming that they just want to make backups and such are not telling the truth, and their actions are costing the rest of us. As long as what seems to be the majority of the Slashdot community believes that P2P filesharing of copyrighted works is morally acceptable, the battle to protect the rights of the artists and studios is going to cause some collateral damage.
At last, a person who understands the argument... You don't like DRM, you don't like the iTunes store, so you don't buy from there...
Why is that concept so difficult to understand for so many people? Is Vertinox some sort of genius that is gifted beyond the abilities of the rest of the people on Slashdot?
Or maybe it is because many Slashdotters are so childishly selfish that all they see is that something stands between them and something they want, causing them to react with an angry tantrum...
How does the idea that "Educating everyone is a teacher's priority" translate to giving you the right to copy and distribute your Coldplay CDs to other little fanboys?
Because that is what we are talking about here... You are kidding yourself you you actually believe that this argument is about fair use.
I understand that the very nature of copy protection and the newer concepts of digital rights management is part of a battle that has gone on for a very long time. I remember decades ago when there were software parties where people would get together to distribute pirated copies of programs simply because it feels fun to do things that you aren't suppossed to do. Hell, I'll admit that I did it myself, but I never tried to claim that I had a moral right to do what I was doing.
Don't try to claim some sort of moral righteousness over these actions when all that is going on is theft.
Your explicit question there is "Why would I buy it if I didn't have the right to use it?" is misstated... You have a right to use it in a manner consistent with the license agreement.
What you are trying to ask is "Why would I buy it if I didn't have the right to use it in any way that I would like?"
And the answer to that is that you DON'T have a right to use copyrighted material in any way that you would like. If you disagree with the terms of the license, then don't pay the money. I'm certain that you will continue to be upset that you don't get what you believe is your constitutionally protected right to free use of someone else's hard work, but you don't have a right to do this any more than I have a right to come over to your house and crash in your bed simply because I might think that it would be comfortable...
The idea behind copyright is that the creator of a work maintains the right to do what they want with that work. They can sell that right to someone else and hopefully make a profit from their hard work, or they can set terms of use for other people to use that work. They can even go and put their work in the public domain if they want and let everyone use it for free. However, a work such as those protected by DRM are owned by someone, and that ownership must be respected. If not, then property means nothing, and anything you have can be taken and used by anyone else in whatever manner they like.
I also understand your use of the word "should"... You feel that you "should" be able to do whatever you want with someone else's property. I understand that desire, but that doesn't make it right.
The whole fair use side of this debate is little more than quibbling. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people who are so passionately demanding their "fair use" exemptions are not teachers trying to educate the future business leaders of America...
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.
If you are a REAL DJ, and not just some fly-by-night guy with a cheap CD player and some speakers, then you know that you are required to have a public performance license, which (for a fee) gives you the right to use the music in ways which are forbidden without such license...
Somehow, I doubt that you have actually paid for that license...
There are lots of things you can't do with your Linux machine. You have chosen to use Linux, and for that choice you have the advantage of an operating system that doesn't crash daily, but you also have the disadvantage of not being able to use all the software that is available, and you can't use all the DRM content that you want on your machine.
Your choice to use a Linux box doesn't give you the right to circumvent the law.
It's all part of a cost-benefit analysis, like everything else in life.
And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.
Jesus Christ, I can't see how people can be so thick about this issue... If you don't want to abide by the terms of the agreement, then don't listen to the music, don't watch the video, and don't play with the software. It's not that difficult to understand. If you absolutely have to listen to the latest crap to come from Coldplay or whatever it is that you listen to, then you will have to abide by the agreement, which means that you will usually have to pay for the content that you download, and you will have to agree to not distribute copies of the content.
How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?
Of course, and no PEOPLE have any involvement in Microsoft and Adobe... Its all just machines, taking over the world...
And the family that owns the breakfast diner down the street from me has incorporated their business... I guess that means they wouldn't be hurt at all if I went and stole from them.
Corporations ARE people... They are owned by people, controlled by people, and people invest their hard-earned money, and quite often their retirement dreams into these corporations. When some asshole steals from the corporation, they aren't stealing from a faceless automaton, they are stealing from people.
The guy stole from people, spending his ill-gotten gains to give himself a life of luxury that included multiple airplanes, a Hummer, a Lambourgini, and other luxuries which law-abiding citizens like the rest of us will probably never have. I work an honest job and have to get by with just a single five-year old Audi and no airplane at all...
The value of all the stuff he has purchased from his crimes has since depreciated. There is no way he will be able to make full restitution for the damage he has done. And the six years in prison is nothing... Six years of his life is probably far less valuable than the balance of his debt after everything he still owns is sold off to partially pay the debt. A lot of his victims will only get a small piece of what he owes them.
Why should he get off with only having to pay part of a debt he acquired through criminal actions?
Start selling off his internal organs as transplants, and let him just hope that his restitution is fully paid before they put something that he REALLY needs on eBay...
Crime is a gamble... When the punishment is far less severe than the potential profit, many people will feel compelled to commit the crime. If a person only gets caught for a fraction of the crimes they commit, then your silly hug-a-thug idea will only encourage people to commit more crimes, since there will be a point at which the profit from the crimes they get away with exceeds the minor "reimbursements" they have to pay when they are actually caught.
Theft is a crime against another person. When you steal from someone, you are depriving them of something which is legitimately theirs. This asshole went and sold software that he stole, with none of the money from the sale going to the people who actually owned the software. That action costs the company money, and it costs all of the people who purchased legitimate copies of the software because they are required to pay more to make up for the pirates. The people who unknowingly purchase pirated software are harmed when they find out that they haven't received a legal copy, and are then required by law to go and purchase the software again to have a legal copy.
If the crime is something like a guy smoking a little weed at home or paying a prostitute for a blowjob, I can understand the argument that nobody is getting hurt. However, even when the crime doesn't involve cracking someone's head open, property crimes still cause harm to others, and the criminals should be severely punished.
The kid in the story got in trouble because someone who saw his IM icon reported it to the school.
By the way, you do know that you posted your employer's name on your Slashdot personal page... You might want to edit that before some Slashdotter tries to turn you in...
Slashdot Mirror
I purchased at least a half dozen Dell systems in 2001, mostly Optiplex desktops and a couple of Latitude laptops. The Optiplex systems worked great, and at least three of them are still in use, including the one I gave to my mother in law. The Latitudes were used by an advance team for a political campaign and they were badly abused, but Dell's support staff was great. Even when a damaged laptop looked like someone had dropkicked it, Dell fixed the computer quickly and under warranty.
One of those two laptops is still functional, even though the campaign's policy director set part of the case on fire after trying to get work done by candlelight... (I didn't have that one fixed. I figured that no matter how nice Dell's people were, nobody was going to accept that for warranty work...)
The problem is that nobody reports examples of good service, they only rant about the problems that they heard happened to a friend of a friend's sister's neighbor or something...
I agree... I own three Dell computers at home, I've given two to my mom, one to my mother in law, and I purchase Dell computers exclusively at work. The computers have always been reliable, and whenever I've had a problem the support has been excellent.
It's just a Slashdot thing... Some kids here feel that they are cool if they say bad things about Dell... It's the same with Microsoft.
Yes, but did your "$400 Xbox 360" come with a digital audio cable? It has a jack for optical digital out, but no cable...
No, the problem with this discussion is you're being paid to shill your viewpoint
I'm getting paid for this?
Most of the major record companies have adopted a method of distributing musical content that is not encumbered by DRM, and is built around a standards compliant system that allows the content to be used in a tremendous number of devices built by any manufacturer.
As a side benefit, the musical content being distributed is also available in a much higher audio resolution than is available from iTunes or any similar online music store.
Musical content distributed in this format is easy to make backup copies of, and although it is still unlawful to distribute these copies to others, you can easily and legally preserve your musical library.
The format is called a "Compact Disk", or "CD" for short... I've tested the technology out, and it seems quite promising. Give it a try...
I also believe that an artist should have the ability to sell the rights to their music if they feel that it is in their best financial interests to do so. Most artists do not have the ability to produce, publish, distribute and sell their works as well as the record companies. A larger record company does have the ability to create more profit out of the artist's work, so selling the rights then becomes more productive and profitable for both the artist and the record company.
Do you feel that an artist shouldn't be allowed to sell the ownership rights to their work?
DRM only inhibits legitimate users of content.
You are probably correct, it's similar to gun control laws in that the only people who are really restricted are the people who respect the law. However, DRM does cut down dramatically the number of casual copyright violations.
The problem with this discussion is that we haven't even defined the discussion yet. The people who are oppossed to DRM are pretty diverse, including people who want to be able to make copies of music that they have purchased, some who just want to play the music on their mp3 player, some who want to play a clip of a video for a classroom, and there are also people who want to participate in illegal file sharing.
Everything that I have seen suggests that the latter group of people opposed to DRM is by far the largest.
Find a solution that cuts down on illegal use, but allows legal use. At this time, DRM is the closest thing we have...
I think that the argument that he is making about the 8-track is in response to the common argument that DRM will cause people to lose the ability to access music that they paid for when certain manufacturers go out of business.
:-)
That argument can be compared to the 8-Track discussion in that if you find an old 8-Track tape of ABBA in the attic, a typical Slashdotter will get offended and claim that his/her "rights" to listen to that tape are being infringed because no players are available any more.
Fortunately I think that I have a copy of ABBA's greatest hits on CD somewhere around here... I'd share it with you, but that would be illegal...
You have made one valid point... I was not clear enough in my statement about "don't listen to the music"....
The licensing agreements are generally about the conditions under which you are allowed to play the music or make and distribute copies of the music, not the conditions under which you are allowed to simply listen. The distinction may seem minor, but it is there. So, I would amend my previous statements accordingly.
However, it doesn't change my overall argument.
That is a valid argument...
The difficult part of the argument is that the bedsheet manufacturers don't have a licensing agreement regarding where the sheets can be used. The artists and studios that produce music and movies do use those licensing agreements.
To really deal with this discussion, there must be a way to develop a digital rights management system that is capable of stopping the people who just want to do filesharing and such, but still allows you the ability to watch your copy of Friends (perhaps even while you are sleeping on the couch under your bedsheets)...
But to get to that point, we need to separate the argument and recognize that many of the people who are claiming that they just want to make backups and such are not telling the truth, and their actions are costing the rest of us. As long as what seems to be the majority of the Slashdot community believes that P2P filesharing of copyrighted works is morally acceptable, the battle to protect the rights of the artists and studios is going to cause some collateral damage.
At last, a person who understands the argument... You don't like DRM, you don't like the iTunes store, so you don't buy from there...
Why is that concept so difficult to understand for so many people? Is Vertinox some sort of genius that is gifted beyond the abilities of the rest of the people on Slashdot?
Or maybe it is because many Slashdotters are so childishly selfish that all they see is that something stands between them and something they want, causing them to react with an angry tantrum...
How does the idea that "Educating everyone is a teacher's priority" translate to giving you the right to copy and distribute your Coldplay CDs to other little fanboys?
Because that is what we are talking about here... You are kidding yourself you you actually believe that this argument is about fair use.
I understand that the very nature of copy protection and the newer concepts of digital rights management is part of a battle that has gone on for a very long time. I remember decades ago when there were software parties where people would get together to distribute pirated copies of programs simply because it feels fun to do things that you aren't suppossed to do. Hell, I'll admit that I did it myself, but I never tried to claim that I had a moral right to do what I was doing.
Don't try to claim some sort of moral righteousness over these actions when all that is going on is theft.
I must have missed that article in the Constitution protecting people's rights to digitally copy and distribute other people's work.
Your explicit question there is "Why would I buy it if I didn't have the right to use it?" is misstated... You have a right to use it in a manner consistent with the license agreement.
What you are trying to ask is "Why would I buy it if I didn't have the right to use it in any way that I would like?"
And the answer to that is that you DON'T have a right to use copyrighted material in any way that you would like. If you disagree with the terms of the license, then don't pay the money. I'm certain that you will continue to be upset that you don't get what you believe is your constitutionally protected right to free use of someone else's hard work, but you don't have a right to do this any more than I have a right to come over to your house and crash in your bed simply because I might think that it would be comfortable...
The idea behind copyright is that the creator of a work maintains the right to do what they want with that work. They can sell that right to someone else and hopefully make a profit from their hard work, or they can set terms of use for other people to use that work. They can even go and put their work in the public domain if they want and let everyone use it for free. However, a work such as those protected by DRM are owned by someone, and that ownership must be respected. If not, then property means nothing, and anything you have can be taken and used by anyone else in whatever manner they like.
I also understand your use of the word "should"... You feel that you "should" be able to do whatever you want with someone else's property. I understand that desire, but that doesn't make it right.
Do you actually believe that, or are you trying to be funny?
The whole fair use side of this debate is little more than quibbling. I wouldn't be surprised if 99% of the people who are so passionately demanding their "fair use" exemptions are not teachers trying to educate the future business leaders of America...
No, the people who are complaining the most and trying to find software to break DRM protections are the people who don't want to pay for the latest CD they heard on the radio. That is all that this discussion is about.
If you are a REAL DJ, and not just some fly-by-night guy with a cheap CD player and some speakers, then you know that you are required to have a public performance license, which (for a fee) gives you the right to use the music in ways which are forbidden without such license...
Somehow, I doubt that you have actually paid for that license...
There are lots of things you can't do with your Linux machine. You have chosen to use Linux, and for that choice you have the advantage of an operating system that doesn't crash daily, but you also have the disadvantage of not being able to use all the software that is available, and you can't use all the DRM content that you want on your machine.
Your choice to use a Linux box doesn't give you the right to circumvent the law.
It's all part of a cost-benefit analysis, like everything else in life.
And if the teacher is distributing content in violation of the law, then that teacher should be fired.
Jesus Christ, I can't see how people can be so thick about this issue... If you don't want to abide by the terms of the agreement, then don't listen to the music, don't watch the video, and don't play with the software. It's not that difficult to understand. If you absolutely have to listen to the latest crap to come from Coldplay or whatever it is that you listen to, then you will have to abide by the agreement, which means that you will usually have to pay for the content that you download, and you will have to agree to not distribute copies of the content.
How freaking self-centered does a person have to be to believe that their rights to pirate music are more relevant than the rights of the people who actually own the music?
Of course, and no PEOPLE have any involvement in Microsoft and Adobe... Its all just machines, taking over the world...
And the family that owns the breakfast diner down the street from me has incorporated their business... I guess that means they wouldn't be hurt at all if I went and stole from them.
Corporations ARE people... They are owned by people, controlled by people, and people invest their hard-earned money, and quite often their retirement dreams into these corporations. When some asshole steals from the corporation, they aren't stealing from a faceless automaton, they are stealing from people.
The guy stole from people, spending his ill-gotten gains to give himself a life of luxury that included multiple airplanes, a Hummer, a Lambourgini, and other luxuries which law-abiding citizens like the rest of us will probably never have. I work an honest job and have to get by with just a single five-year old Audi and no airplane at all...
The value of all the stuff he has purchased from his crimes has since depreciated. There is no way he will be able to make full restitution for the damage he has done. And the six years in prison is nothing... Six years of his life is probably far less valuable than the balance of his debt after everything he still owns is sold off to partially pay the debt. A lot of his victims will only get a small piece of what he owes them.
Why should he get off with only having to pay part of a debt he acquired through criminal actions?
Start selling off his internal organs as transplants, and let him just hope that his restitution is fully paid before they put something that he REALLY needs on eBay...
mod parent (-1: squishy liberal bullshit)
Crime is a gamble... When the punishment is far less severe than the potential profit, many people will feel compelled to commit the crime. If a person only gets caught for a fraction of the crimes they commit, then your silly hug-a-thug idea will only encourage people to commit more crimes, since there will be a point at which the profit from the crimes they get away with exceeds the minor "reimbursements" they have to pay when they are actually caught.
Theft is a crime against another person. When you steal from someone, you are depriving them of something which is legitimately theirs. This asshole went and sold software that he stole, with none of the money from the sale going to the people who actually owned the software. That action costs the company money, and it costs all of the people who purchased legitimate copies of the software because they are required to pay more to make up for the pirates. The people who unknowingly purchase pirated software are harmed when they find out that they haven't received a legal copy, and are then required by law to go and purchase the software again to have a legal copy.
If the crime is something like a guy smoking a little weed at home or paying a prostitute for a blowjob, I can understand the argument that nobody is getting hurt. However, even when the crime doesn't involve cracking someone's head open, property crimes still cause harm to others, and the criminals should be severely punished.
No kidding... They need a Slashdot mod category: (-1, Accurate, but unpopular)
Sure it is... The classics never get old...
By the way, you do know that you posted your employer's name on your Slashdot personal page... You might want to edit that before some Slashdotter tries to turn you in...