Does it exist? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Get rid of it. I want more control over my content and my computer not less. Microsoft only gets business partners not customers.
If you see content sold in such a fashion, do not purchase it. If manufacturers sell hardware that supports it don't buy that hardware. If given a choice of drivers supporting it or not, choose those not supporting it. If you have a choice between knowing your OS does not violate your privacy and your functionality then chose one that doesn't. I use windows XP primarily but have a few Linux boxes. My suggestion is that only Linux can protect your privacy and your security (from prying corporate eyes) and that Windows Vista does just the opposite.
There's no compelling reason to purchase Vista. The choice should be for XP on new boxes. As those you purchase from and demand non-right-infringing software.
You can claim censor but in reality it qualifies as a cover-up. Not necessarily by the removal of the post on their forums but by the mac-addicts here.
I own a few Macintosh computers and have over the years. The reputation Apple had over the years was amazing but to hear about this bothers me greatly.
Hell, bugs are bugs. Just address them as bugs. Who cares about what nVidia says. Address the problem to the customer who paid you for the product. It is that simple. Don't start claiming Apple has the right to censor their boards. They do, but they should not--actually never should. It is indicative of a company with something to hide, such as an inability to provide a fit product that they sold this paying customer. If the product is bad and Apple knows it Apple has to come clean about it instead of hiding it and covering it up.
Potentially this could mean thousands if not 100s of thousands of customers coming back for a swing at Apple. The mac addicts that are here defending the policy of covering up the flaw is ridiculous.
Considering that Apple has had some very questionable moral conduct concerning the shares/options this seems to fit right in with that same behavior. We can call this Apple-Gate because literally this is a cover-up. It hurts the consumers while protecting Apple.
Apple needs to come out on this issue, explain why they took the post down, fix the problem, and apologize to the poor soul they have suffered this upon.
I'm a mac user and I say you guys defending this cover up just suck.
More people will start soldering on replacement capacitors than recommending upgrades to someone insistent on avoiding the DRM attacks to their content and privacy.
I've been in the industry for over 20 years. The box used to be called the CPU. It took alot of time for those of us in the industry to change the terminology. I like the term "the box" more than CPU but that's what the box used to be called.
This is a wake up call to those who don't see this following a theme that could lead to the NSA, DHS, or other organization from having direct access to your computer, your use of that computer, without you knowing it.
Microsoft managed to get he DHS to tell everyone to upgrade to SP2 because SP2 had certain features that allowed Microsoft to more easily determine things about your computer. It also aided them in determining if you are a pirate. The DHS has to have received something in return. In my humble opinion, it would not be far fetched to conclude that Microsoft has given something in return. What bothers me more would be to see the DHS telling everyone to upgrade to Vista--which has a slew of technologies that offend the sensibilities of most informed people.
This continued involvement with the NSA which is known for its black-ops type practices and the DHS which also has been participating in some very nefarious practices against the citizens of the US is just part of greater theme.
Now, why would the NSA and DHS not involve themselves with a technology company that has a monopoly thus guaranteeing that they had access to the vast majority of the US and world's computers? This is unparalleled access to every nook and cranny of our lives. Microsoft's voluntary involvement with these two government organizations has to be something more than just Microsoft getting free advice and technology.
We know this because you don't see other companies doing the same thing with the DHS and NSA. No other company can give these two organizations as much penetration into the US population.
Microsoft has been using closed proprietary code and implementing technologies that are not generally detectable by even some of the best hackers/scientists. The way the activation of XP works is hidden to the degree that hackers still haven't effectively broken it, in fact, they are using the pirated corporate XP Pro product key. If Microsoft can hide such such technology for 5 years they can also hide other bits and pieces not related to the OS but to other agencies bent on monitoring our behavior, patterns, etc.
What troubles me is that the Federal government was pursuing Microsoft quite sternly regarding the anti-trust case/penalties, but now they have all but given up on anything related to it. It tells me that the government has decided that the greater potential benefit to them is the ability to work with Microsoft, at some loss to the citizens in terms of allowing Microsoft to maintain it's monopoly, in order to be able to manage/monitor a citizens access to computers.
I know some of this sounds conspiratorial and even extreme, but consider how the Bush administration has been stealing away our rights to privacy, has been spying on the American public through covert agreements with the likes of the phone company, the law signed by Bush to allow the government to open our private mail and how the Bush administration will not turn over Internet control to a non-US third party for management.
I see a greater theme. This isn't as simple as having Microsoft gain some technology advancement from the NSA. Something else is going on here.
The thinkpad is no where near the top of the line. About a decade ago they were but they haven't been top of the line for almost that long. The thinkpad wasn't called the stinkpad for no reason. If you look inside those notebooks you'll understand why. Pathetically designed with intentional gimping so you couldn't upgrade well. Not that many of the competitors weren't the same but the stinkpads were all alike.
It would not be illegal since the screen, in this scenario, is visible to anyone in the public, even if they are only able to see it from your residence or ones near you. Because it is being broadcast in the open it isn't illegal. The motion picture group might want royalties from what you charge and the government might want to collect taxes but there'd be no legal infringement. You can equate it charging to have someone listen to a CD that you picked up off the street. I found a CD once that was in good shape. I didn't like the music so I gave it to a friend.
One would also have to argue that your charging is in fact causing any damage to the movie industry.
All along the RIAA has been using the public to disseminate information that would scare the rest of the public out of piracy. They are much more successful at reducing piracy because you, yes you, talk about it all the time. The more you talk about them filing the cases the more people refrain from pirating.
This is the very reason they want to the newspapers in the defendants local community to write articles about them pirating. They know that the disclosure of this is more impacting than the actual filing of the case. Now that they have the burden to prove the infringement (as has always been the case--it is just been enforced by a court) this will hurt them more than any. When those that are at the end of these cases receive their filing by the court the more of them will defend against it.
Certainly the RIAA will have to change their tactics. You all better damn well expect it.
Sounds straight forward to me. It is my opinion of what the fall out will be. IANAL.
1) They must show that the files were transferred illegally. They can do this by downloading the files. I don't believe they'd be guilty of illegal sharing if they downloaded files that they own. Just like the artist of the music couldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement on music they created.
2) They must show that they actually contain the content to which the files describe.
3) They must prove they have the rights to those files. They can't download files who's rights are owned by someone else and claim damages for themselves.
4) They must prove that the individual receiving the files don't actually own rights--such as owning a CD but not knowing how to make an mp3 out of them and they just downloaded to get a back up.
Sort of off topic: If you want to ensure that you aren't caught up in Microsoft violating your privacy by them aiding these cheesy organizations (RIAA, etc) then you should be using a very viable OS such as Linux. I personally feel that Microsoft has worked with organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security and other organizations (civil and governmental) to include extremely hidden processes which allow certain amounts of monitoring to take place. If you use Linux there's no chance of getting wrapped in a battle if, and when, it is discovered. Essentially I'm saying that I believe the Linux is the safest route to ensuring your privacy.
Each song is valued at $.70 for the copyright owner (approximately--according to values I have read in various cases and on this site). A candybar costs between $.50 and $1.00. Do our police really have the time to go after every petty theft? The RIAA could create a real burden on the public law enforcement and upon any individual accused by them. The city governments can't afford to pay their police to run after ever petty theft. The average citizen can't afford to defend against every allegation of the RIAA after sicking the police on the citizen.
The purpose of this is to show that the RIAA must show that infringement actually took place and that just having a list of filenames is not sufficient. Someone should set a trap for the RIAA by creating a shared folder of text files with the names of the songs of approximately the size of an actual.mp3 of the same name and then when they are attacked by the RIAA show that no infringement took place and that the RIAA is not doing their homework and thus burdening the courts, law-enforcement and the general public with their witch hunts.
You made no sense in your last sentence. You were asking a question? If people are going to move, why not move to linux instead of Vista?
If so, it is the right question. Promote Linux to your family and friends and get them on Linux. The easiest to convert would especially be those that just chat, web browse, and email.
Of everything I have read and I have read a lot; of everything I have tried with Vista, and I have Vista from the beta and release candidates; I would say that Vista is really nothing more than XP with a new interface.
Certainly there are features that were added and features were improved. No one can doubt that. For the average person most of those feature enhancements have already been thwarted. You can still install malware and that malware can still damage your system through IE. The feature for escalating privs from the basic user to the admin level privs is old hat for Linux, mac, and unix.
On top of that there are some extremely serious issues with DRM particularly around content protection.
Vista essentially has little more. I have seen the refinements of programs and I see the 3d effects and I have used these since the beta release, but one thing is abundantly clear. Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface with a few security enhancements copied from other operating systems that are already exploited or easily turned off, making them useless.
The requirements for additional hardware are excessive and the costs are outrageous.
Essentially you get forced into using Vista in the next couple years with all the DRM, content protection, microsoft proprietary features and rules, constant spying on you and what you are doing even with your own content, a anti-piracy feature that will harm more legit users than pirated copies, with enormous cost increases in hardware for the average home user not to mention on top of the costs associated with the purchase of the OS. From that the users get less choice. They loose more control of what they do on their computer and their computer is being used against them to control what they do on their computer.
Linux doesn't do any of this. You can grow with linux. You can increase your usage and incrementally increase your hardware without additional software costs. You don't have to report to anyone about your legitimacy and you can choose from any number very good software products such as open office and firefox. No one will check your machine daily, weekly, monthly to see if you should be using it or not and no one will threaten to shut down your computer. You won't have to report to microsoft every 6 months to prove that you are legit when you were legit 6 months ago.
I think 2007 is the year of linux if we can rid ourselves of the zealots and create a stable desktop with easy to install programs with alot of power. With Microsoft's super huge massive monopoly that is completely uncontrolled and not accountable to anyone we'll see many more people adopt the desktop of linux.
Ballmer knows this. That's why he threatened Linux. Microsoft is very afraid of the success of Linux because I blows their content protection monopoly out of the water. This is the very same reason Microsoft is fighting so hard to take over the DRM market. They know that DRM is to data what the OS/API is to applications. You get control of that OS/API and you control alot of other markets. You get control of the content protection and DRM and you control markets far outside of the computer.
The worst thing that could happen over the next 5 years is to have people adopting Vista. Please, promote linux in your community with your family and friends and tell them what microsoft is doing with content protection and DRM. The more people that know these details and see the linux side of things will join Linux and make it a larger stronger community.
Reading the recent commercial publications about Vista it is clear that many of these magazines and trade journals have been glossing over the negative aspects of Vista and over-emphasizing the copy-cat features of Vista. They degrade our trust in them by doing this. When you read an article talking about how User Access Control works remember that you have been using it in Linux for a long time, and when you see the nice 3d interface remember the high hardware costs
I can't agree and I would not be so kind as to use the word geek. Geek is now sort of an endearing commentary on a person's ability. Anyone can be a geek. There are many kinds of geeks. A jock is a geek about what he does with their own quirks.
The term for those that negatively impact linux acceptance needs to be zealot or even extremist. They try hard but can't keep their head on straight. They are in face very negative to Linux.
Time will purge them and Linux will make it to the desktop.
Apt-get is a utility that demands high speed internet access. Windows installers do not require any sort of internet access. When Linux apps can be installed the same way a Macintosh installs apps then Linux will conquer the desktop, PERIOD!
We all should be very grateful about these guys calling a pig in lipstick exactly what it is.
I've been trying to tell everyone, for some time, that Microsoft is playing a game where they have been testing the waters on increased privacy violation and spying.
Honestly, the WGN portion of the Windows Genuine Advantage was just that. It was a trial on XP to see how people would be reacting if they implemented it in Vista. I don't think for a moment they ever had the intent of removing anything from it if we all created a huge uproar. I do think they were trying to see how big that uproar could become.
Microsoft has this incredibly incorrect belief that they hold a special place in the software arena. They have to feel they have all this right to do thing that no other software company would try--particularly pertaining to our privacy. It is pretty sickening to see Microsoft, month after month, make out like Windows the OS is special and thus excluded from being handled in a manner that does not invade upon the users. You really think any other software company would attempt to spy on you the way Microsoft has.
I guarantee you that Microsoft has done much more and hidden much more into the OS that people don't know about. I'd be confident to say that they have worked with the Department of Homeland Security to put hidden features to spy on what everyone is doing. I don't doubt it for a minute. It isn't just that the DHS warned everyone to upgrade to SP2 for their own good. They have to have worked with Microsoft in a covert way to implement features that would only work if the majority of people used SP2. To this I would also say that they are giving Microsoft special dispensation for doing this.
I know that sounds conspiratorial. I am not one to be sucked into anything conspiratorial, but this just makes sense. They tested the activation process to keep people from finding out how to break it. If they could implement that in a hidden covert way they could add any number of features to it which we would not be privy to.
It just bothers the hell out of me that the DHS told everyone to upgrade to SP2. What, are they going to be telling everyone to upgrade to Vista? If it is just a matter of really holding onto our security and protecting us then they'd not feel it is inappropriate to tell everyone to upgrade to Vista. why did they not tell everyone using OSX or Linux to implement their security patches?
Anyway, there are features that Microsoft has put in that whittle away at our rights to own and operate our computers. Nothing positive can come from them being so invasive. It is about time someone spoke up and brought to light those things that Microsoft is implementing in Vista.
Vista has always been a pig with lipstick. There's no compelling reason to upgrade and every reason to stay back. There's no reason to not implement DX10 in XP except to extort you to buy Vista. Something's wrong with the whole Vista picture.
What Billy boy is really after is getting everyone to use his DRM. Period. No matter how much he fibs to cover up that fact, that's what he's after.
Bill knows that data is the key to the computer future. It is consumption of that content that is key. He who holds the DRM keys holds the keys to consumption and distribution. Ultimately that leads to control of what you can do with the content you paid for. It also means that possibly you are at risk of only viewing what they want you to view.
Bill said that computers are now being used primarily to consume content. This is what he's after. He wants to control that content through DRM even if he has to fib a bit to get you to think his way of doing it is right.
It is correct to say that DRM is a mess, but when it comes from Microsoft it means they want you to dump your current DRM and go with theirs. Why else would they infect Vista with such horrendous amounts of DRM and then turn around and tell you that DRM is bad?
DRM is to Data what the OS is to programs. You control program development and computer use through the OS and the API of that OS. You control content, vendors, and everything else by dictating the DRM. Bill wants to do to content creators what Apple has done. It just drives Bill crazy to know that Steve Jobs could dictate to the industry certain aspects of costs of content--the main thing Bill sees as the future of computing.
The best thing for the industry is to remove all DRM and let the content market grow based on the merit of that content.
Basically, claiming there's a bias means that you don't understand nor trust what others think or feel about Microsoft. Your project seems far to naive. Why do I say that? Well, you have to understand more about what they have done for themselves than what you are trying to understand what they do for society.
If it wasn't Microsoft I think most believe the wealth would have been spread out and that the innovation that created the industry would still be thriving. Instead of innovation and revolutionary progress we have lawsuits about patents. Microsoft hasn't ever really created anything. They are good adopters of technology but they are a far cry from creators.
They siphon off funds that could/would go to a much larger group of companies/people that would do much more for society.
Think of this as a science fiction novel placed 200 years in the future. We in the past needed a single company, a single standard, to force standardization and connectivity. In a science fiction novel of the future you might have a large uber mega corporation which controls the standards and connectivity. That way anyone can get any information they want. We were thinking in that mode when we let Microsoft become that mega entity.
There's a lot wrong with doing that and we didn't realize it soon enough. Now we have a mega corporation trying to make everyone think that we should be willing to continue down those same paths. In doing so they are able to control the interface, the standards, the connectivity and thus our privacy and our other rights.
Think now about DRM. Microsoft is a big proponent of DRM and the reason isn't because they want to protect the creator's rights, they want to control more of the standards and thus the future.
The DRM is to data as the OS is to programs. The more you control of the DRM the more you can control data/content, almost to the point that you control what people see, hear, and can do with that knowledge. This is not something we want to happen. We want less involvement into what we do our computers and the content on them not more. But you have the likes of Microsoft (and others), Microsoft being the biggest player attempting to control what we do and how we do it.
Bill Gates recognized that the computer is used more today to consume content than to create it. This means a shift. If you watch content control over the next 5 years you will seem Microsoft trying to spearhead that control of that content. They want their DRM so they can determine how much and when you can use it. Take the Zune as an example. It has serious limits on how you can consume your content. You go with Microsoft and their DRM and the Zune and you will pay for it in the long run.
It is that sort of example that ensures that people will have a negative perspective of Microsoft. Microsoft is becoming a negative influence instead of a positive one. They want control instead of standardization and evolution (or even revolution). We can only have a great distrust for companies that have drifted so far off the mark from what we wanted of our computers years ago when we birthed them into the homes of the average citizen.
Guaranteed Microsoft is going to be a serious negative influence on everyone and that is what has people upset with Microsoft. A prime example of this is in their Windows Genuine Advantage program. They implemented technology they stole from an individual that had patented it. Autodesk did the same thing. But Microsoft new they had stolen this guys IP and when sued they buried the court in paperwork in hopes of hiding it. When the Judge discovered this after a judgement in favor of the plaintiff (not Microsoft) he added a punitive fine of over $20 million because Microsoft had buried the court and the plaintiff with the purposeful intent of hiding the evidence that proved their case.
Do you really think we should be trusting a company that steals the technology to keep others from stealing their products and then abuses the court system in order to hide the fact that they stole it?
That's why there's a seeming bias toward Microsoft. You figure out the rest.
If getting paid a little for your work rather than nothing is an acceptable model then something else is wrong with the artists. The artists need to find a way to rid themselves of the RIAA. The way the RIAA does it should be the exception for the artists, not the rule.
The artists already pay for everything from manufacturing, to office work, to supplies, everything. If they make any money the RIAA takes it. The only time they make money is when they are a big hit. They are just stealing more money from those that might make a profit. It basically puts an artists/band longer in the red. That's why they gave contracts to so many musicians. They knew the musicians would have to pay them back even if the albums failed. This just holds back the possibility of going into the black.
Why would anyone agree to lower the amount paid to the creator of the work? Didn't the artists write and make the work? Why would we want to let the RIAA get more while the artists get less? Isn't it their talent? Their creative ability? Their experiences that are being written about? There's no excuse for such a lame attempt by the RIAA.
The distribution of the music is less, the advertising is less--there's no need to pay them more for doing less. The artists deserve more, not less.
This is about selling Microsoft's Vista. I don't like these sorts of disguised posts. No, there's no compelling reason to buy Vista no matter how well hibernate works.
There is no time at all that payment of attorney's fees, even to the state will assist in lowering taxes. This simply gives the money back so they can use it again to sue another. There's no state income tax, but there is a big tax on gas, cigarettes, and anything else you may buy.
Listen, what happens in the world of copyright infringement isn't my concern. If someone copies movies or music from someone else I don't care and I'm not going to contribute to any measure that would stop them. I just don't care. I'm not Microsoft's policeman. I'm not the sheriff for the RI fucking AA.
Debating the legality of any act is up to the courts when it is discovered. I'm not here to justify either parties position because I just don't care about what these people do. I have my own problems that far exceed whether the RIAA or Microsoft get paid for their content. I just isn't my responsibility to deal with this issue for them. We have mechanisms in the court and elsewhere to deal with it.
Yes, I want to know when someone is being railroaded. I want to know the tactics being used by both sides. It's news. I want to know who won and who lost and on what grounds.
I also know people have varying degrees of understanding on most issues. I also know that not everyone understands all the laws or the gray areas and that no one is rich enough to be able to hire a lawyer to get the answers every time these types of issues come up. I also know that some people literally break the law knowingly and that they risk their futures if they get caught and that most of them know this.
But I am not the police and I don't care about protecting Microsoft or any other agency's who's content is potentially infringed.
I do want to know when companies such as Microsoft implement technology to keep others from stealing their software and then in turn are sued because they stole the technology that is used to do just that. It is important to me to know when they are fined for attempting to cripple the plaintiff's case and the Court by burying the evidence in a mountain of paperwork. I also like to know when they are fined 10s of millions more for doing just that. This is what Microsoft did. Is the average poor Joe/Jane who struggles year after year to make ends meet really that big of a criminal that I have to worry about if they are guilty or not?
Sorry, I just don't have the time for that.
I also know that other companies, other than Microsoft, are often deceptive and that unless you are technologically adept you may never really understand fully the right or wrong of some particular act.
The music industry has been very crazy for over 20 years. They essentially are set up to steal the profits of the artists all the while complaining about teenagers that chose to tape a song off the radio. 20 years ago they were doing just that. The artists got little of the money from their work while the music company raked in the bucks and complained about every kid taping songs.
While today the opportunity to violate the copyright of an IP owner is much greater it still isn't my duty to put any effort into protecting these companies. I don't attempt to justify either side of the story.
What I'm interested in is when the big company attempts to cheat the little guy and then breaks the law and tries to justify it.
How can anyone feel anything for Microsoft when they stole the technology to keep others from stealing their software? How can I feel anything at all for them when it becomes clear that they used illegal and unethical tactics to keep what they'd done secret from the judge and the plaintiff? When I see the RIAA suing dead people, old grandmothers, young children, the poverty stricken I can't help but feel no compassion for their side of the story. As well, I feel no sympathy or obligation to support any view that a company has when it effectively steals from the artists through contracts designed to place all burden on the artists while they rake in the profits. See, the artists generally pay for everything (salaries of workers, reproduction, marketing, packaging, even down to the pencils and whiteout used by the record company employees). If the record makes no money the artists generally are obligated to pay (sometimes for the rest of th
People should not be able to shuck off their responsibility but I know Kazaa installs nasty stuff on your computer and often does it in a stealth and even deceptive manner. What bothers me is that apparently when you remove it through add/remove programs software is still on your computer that they installed that can/will share your files with others.
Of course, I still need this to be proven. I'm only commenting on how the article was written up. If indeed they are installing stealth software and are deceptive in how they get you to install and enable uploads, and then when you determine it to be a bad thing and you remove their program, that they leave software on your computer that effectively continues that sharing process, well, someone's going to suffer the penalty.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it exist? Yes. Is it wrong? Yes. Get rid of it. I want more control over my content and my computer not less. Microsoft only gets business partners not customers.
If you see content sold in such a fashion, do not purchase it. If manufacturers sell hardware that supports it don't buy that hardware. If given a choice of drivers supporting it or not, choose those not supporting it. If you have a choice between knowing your OS does not violate your privacy and your functionality then chose one that doesn't. I use windows XP primarily but have a few Linux boxes. My suggestion is that only Linux can protect your privacy and your security (from prying corporate eyes) and that Windows Vista does just the opposite.
There's no compelling reason to purchase Vista. The choice should be for XP on new boxes. As those you purchase from and demand non-right-infringing software.
You can claim censor but in reality it qualifies as a cover-up. Not necessarily by the removal of the post on their forums but by the mac-addicts here.
I own a few Macintosh computers and have over the years. The reputation Apple had over the years was amazing but to hear about this bothers me greatly.
Hell, bugs are bugs. Just address them as bugs. Who cares about what nVidia says. Address the problem to the customer who paid you for the product. It is that simple. Don't start claiming Apple has the right to censor their boards. They do, but they should not--actually never should. It is indicative of a company with something to hide, such as an inability to provide a fit product that they sold this paying customer. If the product is bad and Apple knows it Apple has to come clean about it instead of hiding it and covering it up.
Potentially this could mean thousands if not 100s of thousands of customers coming back for a swing at Apple. The mac addicts that are here defending the policy of covering up the flaw is ridiculous.
Considering that Apple has had some very questionable moral conduct concerning the shares/options this seems to fit right in with that same behavior. We can call this Apple-Gate because literally this is a cover-up. It hurts the consumers while protecting Apple.
Apple needs to come out on this issue, explain why they took the post down, fix the problem, and apologize to the poor soul they have suffered this upon.
I'm a mac user and I say you guys defending this cover up just suck.
More people will start soldering on replacement capacitors than recommending upgrades to someone insistent on avoiding the DRM attacks to their content and privacy.
I've been in the industry for over 20 years. The box used to be called the CPU. It took alot of time for those of us in the industry to change the terminology. I like the term "the box" more than CPU but that's what the box used to be called.
This is a wake up call to those who don't see this following a theme that could lead to the NSA, DHS, or other organization from having direct access to your computer, your use of that computer, without you knowing it.
Microsoft managed to get he DHS to tell everyone to upgrade to SP2 because SP2 had certain features that allowed Microsoft to more easily determine things about your computer. It also aided them in determining if you are a pirate. The DHS has to have received something in return. In my humble opinion, it would not be far fetched to conclude that Microsoft has given something in return. What bothers me more would be to see the DHS telling everyone to upgrade to Vista--which has a slew of technologies that offend the sensibilities of most informed people.
This continued involvement with the NSA which is known for its black-ops type practices and the DHS which also has been participating in some very nefarious practices against the citizens of the US is just part of greater theme.
Now, why would the NSA and DHS not involve themselves with a technology company that has a monopoly thus guaranteeing that they had access to the vast majority of the US and world's computers? This is unparalleled access to every nook and cranny of our lives. Microsoft's voluntary involvement with these two government organizations has to be something more than just Microsoft getting free advice and technology.
We know this because you don't see other companies doing the same thing with the DHS and NSA. No other company can give these two organizations as much penetration into the US population.
Microsoft has been using closed proprietary code and implementing technologies that are not generally detectable by even some of the best hackers/scientists. The way the activation of XP works is hidden to the degree that hackers still haven't effectively broken it, in fact, they are using the pirated corporate XP Pro product key. If Microsoft can hide such such technology for 5 years they can also hide other bits and pieces not related to the OS but to other agencies bent on monitoring our behavior, patterns, etc.
What troubles me is that the Federal government was pursuing Microsoft quite sternly regarding the anti-trust case/penalties, but now they have all but given up on anything related to it. It tells me that the government has decided that the greater potential benefit to them is the ability to work with Microsoft, at some loss to the citizens in terms of allowing Microsoft to maintain it's monopoly, in order to be able to manage/monitor a citizens access to computers.
I know some of this sounds conspiratorial and even extreme, but consider how the Bush administration has been stealing away our rights to privacy, has been spying on the American public through covert agreements with the likes of the phone company, the law signed by Bush to allow the government to open our private mail and how the Bush administration will not turn over Internet control to a non-US third party for management.
I see a greater theme. This isn't as simple as having Microsoft gain some technology advancement from the NSA. Something else is going on here.
The thinkpad is no where near the top of the line. About a decade ago they were but they haven't been top of the line for almost that long. The thinkpad wasn't called the stinkpad for no reason. If you look inside those notebooks you'll understand why. Pathetically designed with intentional gimping so you couldn't upgrade well. Not that many of the competitors weren't the same but the stinkpads were all alike.
I didn't give the government the right to voilate my privacy in such a fashion. I would say have at it.
So they could sue them to stop but they couldn't sue for damages?
It would not be illegal since the screen, in this scenario, is visible to anyone in the public, even if they are only able to see it from your residence or ones near you. Because it is being broadcast in the open it isn't illegal. The motion picture group might want royalties from what you charge and the government might want to collect taxes but there'd be no legal infringement. You can equate it charging to have someone listen to a CD that you picked up off the street. I found a CD once that was in good shape. I didn't like the music so I gave it to a friend.
One would also have to argue that your charging is in fact causing any damage to the movie industry.
All along the RIAA has been using the public to disseminate information that would scare the rest of the public out of piracy. They are much more successful at reducing piracy because you, yes you, talk about it all the time. The more you talk about them filing the cases the more people refrain from pirating.
This is the very reason they want to the newspapers in the defendants local community to write articles about them pirating. They know that the disclosure of this is more impacting than the actual filing of the case. Now that they have the burden to prove the infringement (as has always been the case--it is just been enforced by a court) this will hurt them more than any. When those that are at the end of these cases receive their filing by the court the more of them will defend against it.
Certainly the RIAA will have to change their tactics. You all better damn well expect it.
Sounds straight forward to me. It is my opinion of what the fall out will be. IANAL.
1) They must show that the files were transferred illegally. They can do this by downloading the files. I don't believe they'd be guilty of illegal sharing if they downloaded files that they own. Just like the artist of the music couldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement on music they created.
2) They must show that they actually contain the content to which the files describe.
3) They must prove they have the rights to those files. They can't download files who's rights are owned by someone else and claim damages for themselves.
4) They must prove that the individual receiving the files don't actually own rights--such as owning a CD but not knowing how to make an mp3 out of them and they just downloaded to get a back up.
Sort of off topic:
If you want to ensure that you aren't caught up in Microsoft violating your privacy by them aiding these cheesy organizations (RIAA, etc) then you should be using a very viable OS such as Linux. I personally feel that Microsoft has worked with organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security and other organizations (civil and governmental) to include extremely hidden processes which allow certain amounts of monitoring to take place. If you use Linux there's no chance of getting wrapped in a battle if, and when, it is discovered. Essentially I'm saying that I believe the Linux is the safest route to ensuring your privacy.
Each song is valued at $.70 for the copyright owner (approximately--according to values I have read in various cases and on this site). A candybar costs between $.50 and $1.00. Do our police really have the time to go after every petty theft? The RIAA could create a real burden on the public law enforcement and upon any individual accused by them. The city governments can't afford to pay their police to run after ever petty theft. The average citizen can't afford to defend against every allegation of the RIAA after sicking the police on the citizen.
.mp3 of the same name and then when they are attacked by the RIAA show that no infringement took place and that the RIAA is not doing their homework and thus burdening the courts, law-enforcement and the general public with their witch hunts.
The purpose of this is to show that the RIAA must show that infringement actually took place and that just having a list of filenames is not sufficient. Someone should set a trap for the RIAA by creating a shared folder of text files with the names of the songs of approximately the size of an actual
You made no sense in your last sentence. You were asking a question? If people are going to move, why not move to linux instead of Vista?
If so, it is the right question. Promote Linux to your family and friends and get them on Linux. The easiest to convert would especially be those that just chat, web browse, and email.
Of everything I have read and I have read a lot; of everything I have tried with Vista, and I have Vista from the beta and release candidates; I would say that Vista is really nothing more than XP with a new interface.
Certainly there are features that were added and features were improved. No one can doubt that. For the average person most of those feature enhancements have already been thwarted. You can still install malware and that malware can still damage your system through IE. The feature for escalating privs from the basic user to the admin level privs is old hat for Linux, mac, and unix.
On top of that there are some extremely serious issues with DRM particularly around content protection.
Vista essentially has little more. I have seen the refinements of programs and I see the 3d effects and I have used these since the beta release, but one thing is abundantly clear. Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface with a few security enhancements copied from other operating systems that are already exploited or easily turned off, making them useless.
The requirements for additional hardware are excessive and the costs are outrageous.
Essentially you get forced into using Vista in the next couple years with all the DRM, content protection, microsoft proprietary features and rules, constant spying on you and what you are doing even with your own content, a anti-piracy feature that will harm more legit users than pirated copies, with enormous cost increases in hardware for the average home user not to mention on top of the costs associated with the purchase of the OS. From that the users get less choice. They loose more control of what they do on their computer and their computer is being used against them to control what they do on their computer.
Linux doesn't do any of this. You can grow with linux. You can increase your usage and incrementally increase your hardware without additional software costs. You don't have to report to anyone about your legitimacy and you can choose from any number very good software products such as open office and firefox. No one will check your machine daily, weekly, monthly to see if you should be using it or not and no one will threaten to shut down your computer. You won't have to report to microsoft every 6 months to prove that you are legit when you were legit 6 months ago.
I think 2007 is the year of linux if we can rid ourselves of the zealots and create a stable desktop with easy to install programs with alot of power. With Microsoft's super huge massive monopoly that is completely uncontrolled and not accountable to anyone we'll see many more people adopt the desktop of linux.
Ballmer knows this. That's why he threatened Linux. Microsoft is very afraid of the success of Linux because I blows their content protection monopoly out of the water. This is the very same reason Microsoft is fighting so hard to take over the DRM market. They know that DRM is to data what the OS/API is to applications. You get control of that OS/API and you control alot of other markets. You get control of the content protection and DRM and you control markets far outside of the computer.
The worst thing that could happen over the next 5 years is to have people adopting Vista. Please, promote linux in your community with your family and friends and tell them what microsoft is doing with content protection and DRM. The more people that know these details and see the linux side of things will join Linux and make it a larger stronger community.
Reading the recent commercial publications about Vista it is clear that many of these magazines and trade journals have been glossing over the negative aspects of Vista and over-emphasizing the copy-cat features of Vista. They degrade our trust in them by doing this. When you read an article talking about how User Access Control works remember that you have been using it in Linux for a long time, and when you see the nice 3d interface remember the high hardware costs
I can't agree and I would not be so kind as to use the word geek. Geek is now sort of an endearing commentary on a person's ability. Anyone can be a geek. There are many kinds of geeks. A jock is a geek about what he does with their own quirks.
The term for those that negatively impact linux acceptance needs to be zealot or even extremist. They try hard but can't keep their head on straight. They are in face very negative to Linux.
Time will purge them and Linux will make it to the desktop.
Apt-get is a utility that demands high speed internet access. Windows installers do not require any sort of internet access. When Linux apps can be installed the same way a Macintosh installs apps then Linux will conquer the desktop, PERIOD!
We all should be very grateful about these guys calling a pig in lipstick exactly what it is.
I've been trying to tell everyone, for some time, that Microsoft is playing a game where they have been testing the waters on increased privacy violation and spying.
Honestly, the WGN portion of the Windows Genuine Advantage was just that. It was a trial on XP to see how people would be reacting if they implemented it in Vista. I don't think for a moment they ever had the intent of removing anything from it if we all created a huge uproar. I do think they were trying to see how big that uproar could become.
Microsoft has this incredibly incorrect belief that they hold a special place in the software arena. They have to feel they have all this right to do thing that no other software company would try--particularly pertaining to our privacy. It is pretty sickening to see Microsoft, month after month, make out like Windows the OS is special and thus excluded from being handled in a manner that does not invade upon the users. You really think any other software company would attempt to spy on you the way Microsoft has.
I guarantee you that Microsoft has done much more and hidden much more into the OS that people don't know about. I'd be confident to say that they have worked with the Department of Homeland Security to put hidden features to spy on what everyone is doing. I don't doubt it for a minute. It isn't just that the DHS warned everyone to upgrade to SP2 for their own good. They have to have worked with Microsoft in a covert way to implement features that would only work if the majority of people used SP2. To this I would also say that they are giving Microsoft special dispensation for doing this.
I know that sounds conspiratorial. I am not one to be sucked into anything conspiratorial, but this just makes sense. They tested the activation process to keep people from finding out how to break it. If they could implement that in a hidden covert way they could add any number of features to it which we would not be privy to.
It just bothers the hell out of me that the DHS told everyone to upgrade to SP2. What, are they going to be telling everyone to upgrade to Vista? If it is just a matter of really holding onto our security and protecting us then they'd not feel it is inappropriate to tell everyone to upgrade to Vista. why did they not tell everyone using OSX or Linux to implement their security patches?
Anyway, there are features that Microsoft has put in that whittle away at our rights to own and operate our computers. Nothing positive can come from them being so invasive. It is about time someone spoke up and brought to light those things that Microsoft is implementing in Vista.
Vista has always been a pig with lipstick. There's no compelling reason to upgrade and every reason to stay back. There's no reason to not implement DX10 in XP except to extort you to buy Vista. Something's wrong with the whole Vista picture.
What Billy boy is really after is getting everyone to use his DRM. Period. No matter how much he fibs to cover up that fact, that's what he's after.
Bill knows that data is the key to the computer future. It is consumption of that content that is key. He who holds the DRM keys holds the keys to consumption and distribution. Ultimately that leads to control of what you can do with the content you paid for. It also means that possibly you are at risk of only viewing what they want you to view.
Bill said that computers are now being used primarily to consume content. This is what he's after. He wants to control that content through DRM even if he has to fib a bit to get you to think his way of doing it is right.
It is correct to say that DRM is a mess, but when it comes from Microsoft it means they want you to dump your current DRM and go with theirs. Why else would they infect Vista with such horrendous amounts of DRM and then turn around and tell you that DRM is bad?
DRM is to Data what the OS is to programs. You control program development and computer use through the OS and the API of that OS. You control content, vendors, and everything else by dictating the DRM. Bill wants to do to content creators what Apple has done. It just drives Bill crazy to know that Steve Jobs could dictate to the industry certain aspects of costs of content--the main thing Bill sees as the future of computing.
The best thing for the industry is to remove all DRM and let the content market grow based on the merit of that content.
Basically, claiming there's a bias means that you don't understand nor trust what others think or feel about Microsoft. Your project seems far to naive. Why do I say that? Well, you have to understand more about what they have done for themselves than what you are trying to understand what they do for society.
If it wasn't Microsoft I think most believe the wealth would have been spread out and that the innovation that created the industry would still be thriving. Instead of innovation and revolutionary progress we have lawsuits about patents. Microsoft hasn't ever really created anything. They are good adopters of technology but they are a far cry from creators.
They siphon off funds that could/would go to a much larger group of companies/people that would do much more for society.
Think of this as a science fiction novel placed 200 years in the future. We in the past needed a single company, a single standard, to force standardization and connectivity. In a science fiction novel of the future you might have a large uber mega corporation which controls the standards and connectivity. That way anyone can get any information they want. We were thinking in that mode when we let Microsoft become that mega entity.
There's a lot wrong with doing that and we didn't realize it soon enough. Now we have a mega corporation trying to make everyone think that we should be willing to continue down those same paths. In doing so they are able to control the interface, the standards, the connectivity and thus our privacy and our other rights.
Think now about DRM. Microsoft is a big proponent of DRM and the reason isn't because they want to protect the creator's rights, they want to control more of the standards and thus the future.
The DRM is to data as the OS is to programs. The more you control of the DRM the more you can control data/content, almost to the point that you control what people see, hear, and can do with that knowledge. This is not something we want to happen. We want less involvement into what we do our computers and the content on them not more. But you have the likes of Microsoft (and others), Microsoft being the biggest player attempting to control what we do and how we do it.
Bill Gates recognized that the computer is used more today to consume content than to create it. This means a shift. If you watch content control over the next 5 years you will seem Microsoft trying to spearhead that control of that content. They want their DRM so they can determine how much and when you can use it. Take the Zune as an example. It has serious limits on how you can consume your content. You go with Microsoft and their DRM and the Zune and you will pay for it in the long run.
It is that sort of example that ensures that people will have a negative perspective of Microsoft. Microsoft is becoming a negative influence instead of a positive one. They want control instead of standardization and evolution (or even revolution). We can only have a great distrust for companies that have drifted so far off the mark from what we wanted of our computers years ago when we birthed them into the homes of the average citizen.
Guaranteed Microsoft is going to be a serious negative influence on everyone and that is what has people upset with Microsoft. A prime example of this is in their Windows Genuine Advantage program. They implemented technology they stole from an individual that had patented it. Autodesk did the same thing. But Microsoft new they had stolen this guys IP and when sued they buried the court in paperwork in hopes of hiding it. When the Judge discovered this after a judgement in favor of the plaintiff (not Microsoft) he added a punitive fine of over $20 million because Microsoft had buried the court and the plaintiff with the purposeful intent of hiding the evidence that proved their case.
Do you really think we should be trusting a company that steals the technology to keep others from stealing their products and then abuses the court system in order to hide the fact that they stole it?
That's why there's a seeming bias toward Microsoft. You figure out the rest.
If getting paid a little for your work rather than nothing is an acceptable model then something else is wrong with the artists. The artists need to find a way to rid themselves of the RIAA. The way the RIAA does it should be the exception for the artists, not the rule.
The artists already pay for everything from manufacturing, to office work, to supplies, everything. If they make any money the RIAA takes it. The only time they make money is when they are a big hit. They are just stealing more money from those that might make a profit. It basically puts an artists/band longer in the red. That's why they gave contracts to so many musicians. They knew the musicians would have to pay them back even if the albums failed. This just holds back the possibility of going into the black.
Why would anyone agree to lower the amount paid to the creator of the work? Didn't the artists write and make the work? Why would we want to let the RIAA get more while the artists get less? Isn't it their talent? Their creative ability? Their experiences that are being written about? There's no excuse for such a lame attempt by the RIAA.
The distribution of the music is less, the advertising is less--there's no need to pay them more for doing less. The artists deserve more, not less.
Can't believe the RI fucking AA.
End of an era, end of a monopoly, end of highly over-inflated prices, end of dictatorial control of my content and how my computer works.
This is about selling Microsoft's Vista. I don't like these sorts of disguised posts. No, there's no compelling reason to buy Vista no matter how well hibernate works.
There is no time at all that payment of attorney's fees, even to the state will assist in lowering taxes. This simply gives the money back so they can use it again to sue another. There's no state income tax, but there is a big tax on gas, cigarettes, and anything else you may buy.
Listen, what happens in the world of copyright infringement isn't my concern. If someone copies movies or music from someone else I don't care and I'm not going to contribute to any measure that would stop them. I just don't care. I'm not Microsoft's policeman. I'm not the sheriff for the RI fucking AA.
Debating the legality of any act is up to the courts when it is discovered. I'm not here to justify either parties position because I just don't care about what these people do. I have my own problems that far exceed whether the RIAA or Microsoft get paid for their content. I just isn't my responsibility to deal with this issue for them. We have mechanisms in the court and elsewhere to deal with it.
Yes, I want to know when someone is being railroaded. I want to know the tactics being used by both sides. It's news. I want to know who won and who lost and on what grounds.
I also know people have varying degrees of understanding on most issues. I also know that not everyone understands all the laws or the gray areas and that no one is rich enough to be able to hire a lawyer to get the answers every time these types of issues come up. I also know that some people literally break the law knowingly and that they risk their futures if they get caught and that most of them know this.
But I am not the police and I don't care about protecting Microsoft or any other agency's who's content is potentially infringed.
I do want to know when companies such as Microsoft implement technology to keep others from stealing their software and then in turn are sued because they stole the technology that is used to do just that. It is important to me to know when they are fined for attempting to cripple the plaintiff's case and the Court by burying the evidence in a mountain of paperwork. I also like to know when they are fined 10s of millions more for doing just that. This is what Microsoft did. Is the average poor Joe/Jane who struggles year after year to make ends meet really that big of a criminal that I have to worry about if they are guilty or not?
Sorry, I just don't have the time for that.
I also know that other companies, other than Microsoft, are often deceptive and that unless you are technologically adept you may never really understand fully the right or wrong of some particular act.
The music industry has been very crazy for over 20 years. They essentially are set up to steal the profits of the artists all the while complaining about teenagers that chose to tape a song off the radio. 20 years ago they were doing just that. The artists got little of the money from their work while the music company raked in the bucks and complained about every kid taping songs.
While today the opportunity to violate the copyright of an IP owner is much greater it still isn't my duty to put any effort into protecting these companies. I don't attempt to justify either side of the story.
What I'm interested in is when the big company attempts to cheat the little guy and then breaks the law and tries to justify it.
How can anyone feel anything for Microsoft when they stole the technology to keep others from stealing their software? How can I feel anything at all for them when it becomes clear that they used illegal and unethical tactics to keep what they'd done secret from the judge and the plaintiff? When I see the RIAA suing dead people, old grandmothers, young children, the poverty stricken I can't help but feel no compassion for their side of the story. As well, I feel no sympathy or obligation to support any view that a company has when it effectively steals from the artists through contracts designed to place all burden on the artists while they rake in the profits. See, the artists generally pay for everything (salaries of workers, reproduction, marketing, packaging, even down to the pencils and whiteout used by the record company employees). If the record makes no money the artists generally are obligated to pay (sometimes for the rest of th
People should not be able to shuck off their responsibility but I know Kazaa installs nasty stuff on your computer and often does it in a stealth and even deceptive manner. What bothers me is that apparently when you remove it through add/remove programs software is still on your computer that they installed that can/will share your files with others.
Of course, I still need this to be proven. I'm only commenting on how the article was written up. If indeed they are installing stealth software and are deceptive in how they get you to install and enable uploads, and then when you determine it to be a bad thing and you remove their program, that they leave software on your computer that effectively continues that sharing process, well, someone's going to suffer the penalty.