I'm willing to give up the nice UI to know what else is in the program, or change it myself, etc. I moved from the 'doze world to Linux, not pretty-shiny (and stable) OSX, for this reason. "Free as in liberty." This isn't just my argument to get people to move to F/OSS, its *my* reason. If the pretty-shiny is more important to Joe Sixpack then the "free as in liberty" and the "free as in beer" - even after I've given my whole shindig about it - there really isn't reason for them to move. Sure, more linux marketshare is better for me in order to get companies to give it better drive support, etc. I just don't feel right going back to that missionary I turned down to tell him whats best for him even if he doesn't know it.
While I agree that that is a sound way to go about things, that does add more cost to the system. Its not right (both legally and ethically) to force a user to take such precisions with no mention of their necessity in the warranty.
I don't have complete faith in the summaries or TFA on/.; however, I do give a lot of credit to the fellow/.'ers. The mistakes in the summaries or TFA's are pointed out viciously by this community: everything from blatant lies to tupos. No, I wouldn't give/. competely go, but its one of the best news sources out there primarily because of the "peer review."
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with bandwidth to end users. I'm not sure where that one came from.
... or re-prioritize the network stream...
Having my bittorrent re-prioritized behind VOIP would slow the rate, no? Should everyone else on my block use VOIP all the time while I'm socially inept and spend all my time downloading different linux distros because I can't make up my mind, I could have my bandwidth throttled. In this case I am, btw, an end user.
If you didn't have a Tivo, VCR, DVD Player, etc, would AppleTV not seem a reasonable choice?
I don't believe the article is talking about everyone tossing what they currently have for the iPhone, so much as in the future choosing the iPhone over other devices (ie, iPod & Cell). There's a huge difference. I already have XP - Vista is not worth the cost of "upgrade"; but I can guarantee you Vista will eat into XP sales.
The RIAA sued a dead individual, you know. Unless I'm mistaken, that individual would be unable to "ilegally [sic] pirate copyrighted material." Somehow I don't think taking that third option will leave you from having to chose one of the first two. If you can't (afford to) fight back, what does it matter if you're actually doing the action you are accused of?
Let the blame shift to the RIAA, even if its congress who's truly to blame.
If congress takes 100% of the blame, it won't want to change the law and admit its fault. Rather, if the RIAA takes the blame congress can fix it without completely admitting they fudged up.
I'd rather have the law changed and be allowed to do things along the lines of legally playing the DVD I received for my birthday a few years ago on my Linux boxen, then glare at congress with that DVD sitting on my shelf still in its shrink-wrap. Its not as though the RIAA is innocent in all this anyways.
(1) When a site with a video gets hit hard by/. or digg, the vast majority of people would not be able to maintain it. Google's got plenty 'o cash to take care of the bandwidth for such situations.
(2) Plenty 'o people have no idea whatsoever how to go about getting their own video's hosted on their own site, irrelevantly of if they have the financial requirements to do so. Youtube is simple enough for everyone ("You") to use.
Between the options of not having the video accessible at all (due to not knowing how, or expecting it to be hit by/. or digg), and having it accessible with small chance of it being taken down - I'd take the latter, as would most people.
I feel obligated to point out that plenty of us ARE doing things, even while we laugh at the RIAA's losses. Simply because you aren't, and/or you know no one else doing such, does not mean its not happening. Would you rather I post my actions to against the RIAA every story? Thats absurd, but fine, here:
I've not purchased a DVD or anything from iTunes ever. I've been boycotting DRM before it was cool. The last essay I wrote for my English class was entitled "DRM: Slowly Taking Our Rights." When I recommend VLC to a not-so-savy computer user, I always follow it with a warning about how in both the United States and France its not completely legal to use it to play DVD's.
Complaining about lack of action (specifically in a manner which will not encourage others to action), is it itself no better than doing nothing at all. How about you start a no-drm day? Make a website and get it on/., digg, etc. Don't assume no one else is taking any action; we are.
The fact that some spoiled brats are whining about it just affirms the reasonableness of the rule. Where the hell did you get that idea? Try beating your kids; trust me last time I heard about someone doing it their kids whined quite a bit. Must be quite reasonable.
I pay the university I go to (by taking out a loan). Who the hell are they to decide that my internet connection is the reason I only have a 3.85GPA, and didn't manage to keep my 4.0. There are plenty of kids out there who can both be good students as well as stay up all night playing Counter Strike or whatnot a couple times a week. Or, should a professor decide to forget to tell us we have a test until the day before it, why not allow me to have an all-night cramfest, followed by a strong hit of caffeine? Even when I do that, I both do well on the test and (somehow manage too) retain the information for future use.
Should my internet access by limited in such a fashion, I'm quite convinced both my grades as well as the actual amount I manage to learn will be sorely hampered.
First amendment rights do not exist outside the bounds of government, true. However, censuring is still frowned upon, and as consumers in a capitalist society we're (supposedly) encouraged to complain about such things, and if they are not dealt with move our business elsewhere. So what if free speech isn't legally mandatory here? It still pisses me off, and as a consumer I'm perfectly within my rights to complain about such things, and spend my money accordingly.
Yes, there are bigger problems in the world, but it isn't reasonable to ignore everything else. May I request that until you've found a cure for cancer, you refrain clarifying your skewed view of consumer rights? There are bigger problems for you to deal with.
If you invite me into your house with the interest of selling me something of yours, and decide the item for sale does not meet my specifications and I am thrown out as a result, I will damn sure complain. I'll let all my friends know how you treat your customers in hopes of watching your business fall.
It does not matter if someone is "stealing" it or not. If MAFIAA has lackluster sales, its clearly the fault of piracy. We, as the sheeple of the United States of American, have to like their stuff and what it. If its not being purchased, there is only one alternative.
I wouldn't consider his recommendation of XP an attitude problem. XP doesn't have the legal issues about virtualization. When you complained that Microsoft charges so much money to allow virtualization, you completely left out a far more practical, legal possibility.
In three years, check back to see if Microsoft still has the same stance on virtualization with vista (TFA points out Microsoft is having issues, and may have to change their stance).
Additionally, three years after Win2k everything ran fine on Win2k. Almost everything still does. I'm not convinced that XP will be completely outdated then, either.
I love complaining about Microsoft, but your particular complaint is baseless.
One must consider that the people who do these things [i]really do mean well.[/i] They think they're helping.
The best analogy I can think of is such: You *know* a child must take his medication in order to get better. You *know* if he does not he'll regret it later when he understands. For now, though, the child doesn't understand irrelevant of how well you explain, and just doesn't want to take his medication because they taste bad. Would you be a bad person for trying to sneak the medication in the child's food? Wouldn't it be closer to child abuse if you *didn't* feed force the medication on to him?
This is how I view the mentality of both the people in your examples as well as TFA. I find it extremely difficult to rationally criminalize people such as this in any sense other then 'criminally insane.'
Now, you (and I, as it seems, both) believe (with scientific backing!) that 'we' know is correct, and what 'they' are pushing on is isn't beneficial. We can mock them, as they mock us. They won't consider rational thought, we won't consider blind faith. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put us on an equal level - I *do* think the logical, rational, etc, mentality is 'better', for lack of a better word. None of this I-respect-you-you-respect-me bullshit.
The problem resides here: 'Our' stance has it such that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with *not* forcing our views on someone else. If someone wants to discuss religion (or science, or science vs religion) with me, I'm usually eager. However, 'their' stance holds that they *should* force their views on 'us', even if we don't want it to be.
Sadly, so long as there is a group of people that believes that the 'correct' thing to do is convert those who believe otherwise, it will always be 'us or them'. Neither side is 'the bad guy', both believe they are 'correct' and doing the right thing. Its just we can't mutually exist without tension.
FWIW, I do associate myself with a religion that claims various things 'supernatural.' I just don't care to aggravate others (or break the law) to get them to believe the same as I do.
Its absolutely nothing like the restaurant analogy.
Restraunts don't sign contracts claiming they will provide X service for $Y, and not deliver their end of the deal.
ISP's offer the amount of bandwidth they do because they expect most users will not use it all (IMing and eMail don't eat that much bandwidth at all). They're getting worried because people are finally using what they're paying for, and the scam is up.
Rather then your restraunt analogy, I provice my own:
The all-you-can-eat restraunt kicks you out if you do anything more then drink a cup of coffee and a bowl of soup.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to give up the nice UI to know what else is in the program, or change it myself, etc. I moved from the 'doze world to Linux, not pretty-shiny (and stable) OSX, for this reason. "Free as in liberty." This isn't just my argument to get people to move to F/OSS, its *my* reason. If the pretty-shiny is more important to Joe Sixpack then the "free as in liberty" and the "free as in beer" - even after I've given my whole shindig about it - there really isn't reason for them to move. Sure, more linux marketshare is better for me in order to get companies to give it better drive support, etc. I just don't feel right going back to that missionary I turned down to tell him whats best for him even if he doesn't know it.
While I agree that that is a sound way to go about things, that does add more cost to the system. Its not right (both legally and ethically) to force a user to take such precisions with no mention of their necessity in the warranty.
I don't have complete faith in the summaries or TFA on /.; however, I do give a lot of credit to the fellow /.'ers. The mistakes in the summaries or TFA's are pointed out viciously by this community: everything from blatant lies to tupos. No, I wouldn't give /. competely go, but its one of the best news sources out there primarily because of the "peer review."
Having my bittorrent re-prioritized behind VOIP would slow the rate, no? Should everyone else on my block use VOIP all the time while I'm socially inept and spend all my time downloading different linux distros because I can't make up my mind, I could have my bandwidth throttled. In this case I am, btw, an end user.
If you didn't have a Tivo, VCR, DVD Player, etc, would AppleTV not seem a reasonable choice? I don't believe the article is talking about everyone tossing what they currently have for the iPhone, so much as in the future choosing the iPhone over other devices (ie, iPod & Cell). There's a huge difference. I already have XP - Vista is not worth the cost of "upgrade"; but I can guarantee you Vista will eat into XP sales.
The RIAA sued a dead individual, you know. Unless I'm mistaken, that individual would be unable to "ilegally [sic] pirate copyrighted material." Somehow I don't think taking that third option will leave you from having to chose one of the first two. If you can't (afford to) fight back, what does it matter if you're actually doing the action you are accused of?
Let the blame shift to the RIAA, even if its congress who's truly to blame. If congress takes 100% of the blame, it won't want to change the law and admit its fault. Rather, if the RIAA takes the blame congress can fix it without completely admitting they fudged up. I'd rather have the law changed and be allowed to do things along the lines of legally playing the DVD I received for my birthday a few years ago on my Linux boxen, then glare at congress with that DVD sitting on my shelf still in its shrink-wrap. Its not as though the RIAA is innocent in all this anyways.
(1) When a site with a video gets hit hard by /. or digg, the vast majority of people would not be able to maintain it. Google's got plenty 'o cash to take care of the bandwidth for such situations.
(2) Plenty 'o people have no idea whatsoever how to go about getting their own video's hosted on their own site, irrelevantly of if they have the financial requirements to do so. Youtube is simple enough for everyone ("You") to use.
Between the options of not having the video accessible at all (due to not knowing how, or expecting it to be hit by /. or digg), and having it accessible with small chance of it being taken down - I'd take the latter, as would most people.
Please post the login for an SSH to your machine. Ya'know, since that information could be hacked into anyways, no reason not to just let it out now.
I feel obligated to point out that plenty of us ARE doing things, even while we laugh at the RIAA's losses. Simply because you aren't, and/or you know no one else doing such, does not mean its not happening. Would you rather I post my actions to against the RIAA every story? Thats absurd, but fine, here: I've not purchased a DVD or anything from iTunes ever. I've been boycotting DRM before it was cool. The last essay I wrote for my English class was entitled "DRM: Slowly Taking Our Rights." When I recommend VLC to a not-so-savy computer user, I always follow it with a warning about how in both the United States and France its not completely legal to use it to play DVD's. Complaining about lack of action (specifically in a manner which will not encourage others to action), is it itself no better than doing nothing at all. How about you start a no-drm day? Make a website and get it on /., digg, etc. Don't assume no one else is taking any action; we are.
TFS: "GREYCstoration is an open-source tool"
First amendment rights do not exist outside the bounds of government, true. However, censuring is still frowned upon, and as consumers in a capitalist society we're (supposedly) encouraged to complain about such things, and if they are not dealt with move our business elsewhere. So what if free speech isn't legally mandatory here? It still pisses me off, and as a consumer I'm perfectly within my rights to complain about such things, and spend my money accordingly. Yes, there are bigger problems in the world, but it isn't reasonable to ignore everything else. May I request that until you've found a cure for cancer, you refrain clarifying your skewed view of consumer rights? There are bigger problems for you to deal with. If you invite me into your house with the interest of selling me something of yours, and decide the item for sale does not meet my specifications and I am thrown out as a result, I will damn sure complain. I'll let all my friends know how you treat your customers in hopes of watching your business fall.
They haven't forgotten about fair use at all. They just plain don't like it.
It does not matter if someone is "stealing" it or not. If MAFIAA has lackluster sales, its clearly the fault of piracy. We, as the sheeple of the United States of American, have to like their stuff and what it. If its not being purchased, there is only one alternative.
I wouldn't consider his recommendation of XP an attitude problem. XP doesn't have the legal issues about virtualization. When you complained that Microsoft charges so much money to allow virtualization, you completely left out a far more practical, legal possibility. In three years, check back to see if Microsoft still has the same stance on virtualization with vista (TFA points out Microsoft is having issues, and may have to change their stance). Additionally, three years after Win2k everything ran fine on Win2k. Almost everything still does. I'm not convinced that XP will be completely outdated then, either. I love complaining about Microsoft, but your particular complaint is baseless.
One must consider that the people who do these things [i]really do mean well.[/i] They think they're helping. The best analogy I can think of is such: You *know* a child must take his medication in order to get better. You *know* if he does not he'll regret it later when he understands. For now, though, the child doesn't understand irrelevant of how well you explain, and just doesn't want to take his medication because they taste bad. Would you be a bad person for trying to sneak the medication in the child's food? Wouldn't it be closer to child abuse if you *didn't* feed force the medication on to him? This is how I view the mentality of both the people in your examples as well as TFA. I find it extremely difficult to rationally criminalize people such as this in any sense other then 'criminally insane.' Now, you (and I, as it seems, both) believe (with scientific backing!) that 'we' know is correct, and what 'they' are pushing on is isn't beneficial. We can mock them, as they mock us. They won't consider rational thought, we won't consider blind faith. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put us on an equal level - I *do* think the logical, rational, etc, mentality is 'better', for lack of a better word. None of this I-respect-you-you-respect-me bullshit. The problem resides here: 'Our' stance has it such that there isn't anything fundamentally wrong with *not* forcing our views on someone else. If someone wants to discuss religion (or science, or science vs religion) with me, I'm usually eager. However, 'their' stance holds that they *should* force their views on 'us', even if we don't want it to be. Sadly, so long as there is a group of people that believes that the 'correct' thing to do is convert those who believe otherwise, it will always be 'us or them'. Neither side is 'the bad guy', both believe they are 'correct' and doing the right thing. Its just we can't mutually exist without tension. FWIW, I do associate myself with a religion that claims various things 'supernatural.' I just don't care to aggravate others (or break the law) to get them to believe the same as I do.
Its absolutely nothing like the restaurant analogy. Restraunts don't sign contracts claiming they will provide X service for $Y, and not deliver their end of the deal. ISP's offer the amount of bandwidth they do because they expect most users will not use it all (IMing and eMail don't eat that much bandwidth at all). They're getting worried because people are finally using what they're paying for, and the scam is up. Rather then your restraunt analogy, I provice my own: The all-you-can-eat restraunt kicks you out if you do anything more then drink a cup of coffee and a bowl of soup.