I guess you could relate this to making picking bank vault locks illegal, when in fact it's the 'stealing money' part that's illegal.
I used to think the same thing. Locks are put there for a reason: to restrict access. If a company invests money in a lock (especially if the lock in question cost thousands of $ in R&D), they want it to be effective, not broken permanently and easily. Why should a digital lock be any different?
Then I thought about the fact that you are the one footing the bill for this lock. You are purchasing it,you are consuming it, but you have absolutely no say in how it's used. And it restricts usage of the media that you purchased in the name of stopping pircay.
In other news, certain patterns of sound and light are subject to copyright restrictions, details at 11.
Come on. It's not so hard to understand. The fact that some patterns of sound and light are copyrighted doesn't make all usage of sound and light illegal. You know that.
I realise information wants to be free and all that, but the simple fact is that it currently isn't. And if we can't come up with better arguments than this, then it shall remain that way.
For some reason, I was under the impression that we already had some DMCA equivalent here. I guess not. However, that doesn't explain why I couldn't get libdvdcss from the Australian Ubuntu repositories.
Seriously though, the US is so completely culturally dominant, this sort of thing is inevitable. It's no secret that our country is snuggling up to the US, building relations, scratching each other's backs. This sort of thing was bound to happen sooner or later. Hell, the DMCA has spread far and wide. The law is staunchly backed by multi-national corporations that exist here too. Why would we be immune?
I certainly respect where you're coming from here, but there's something I don't think you appreciate.
Not meaning to troll here, but I've found that the liberal ideal revolves around giving people freedom by restricting the law. By demanding that it be followed word-for-word, by demanding education over legislation, by trying to iron out inconsistencies by reducing the powers of authority. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the law is merely a tool for persecuting those they don't want around (be it for safety or purely selfish reasons). They don't tend to care if it goes beyond the law's juristiction, they just want the offending party outta there.
That seems to be where UMG coming from. They don't give a shit if the law is inconsisent, they're just want to permanently squash the healthy competition that YouTube (and P2P networks) provide(s).
how long do you think it will be before the first Zune virus appears?
Stupid question here, but how would the Zune contract a virus? I assume it would not have the capacity to execute without flashing the firmware. I'm not trying to say your're wrong, I genuinely want to know.
BTW, wouldn't you think that firmware would have some DRM system to prevent unsigned mods or even the Linux kernel from running?
Don't for a minute confuse that with genuine ethical feelings though.
I must confess that I do confuse this with genuine ethical feelings. Then again, if you think about it, when we have "genuine" ethical feelings, don't we do it for selfish reasons? To feel good, to impress, etc? In fact, isn't that the reason that any life form does anything? Don't confuse your selfish motivations with "genuine" ethical feelings.
I think the submitter might be refering to the US. Let's face it, there are a LOT of/.ers out there who are at least a little concerned about the state of privacy in the US. This might have been the submitter's subtle way of encouraging a flamewar.
A lot of people have no problems with downloading software or other copyrighted materials illegaly, as long as it is for free. But a lot of people are against selling such items, or making a profit off of it. Unfortunately, the copyright lobby views both groups as filthy stinking pirates
Payment doesn't have to be tangible. It can take the form of favours, special treatment, establishing connections. Hell, it could be the warm and fuzzy feeling you get when you give that certain someone a gift. I'm just sayin' that I can sympathise with the courts on this one. It's hard to know who deserves it and who doesn't. Money isn't the only thing that makes the world go round.
Please ignore the parent's question, since (I hope) he speaks in jest. It's the clueless moderators who modded him interesting.
Your's faithfully, TheVelvetFlamebait
Seriously though, the answer to the question is simple. Don't share the RIAA's songs, don't format shift their CDs. If you want to be safe (which I certainly do), don't use their services at all. The answer is not that complicated.
in no way are they entitled to one dime of 'profit' if their business model is flawed
It isn't flawed: they lock down the hardware, as I explained. The law (in this case, the DMCA) is fully behind it. It's like saying a bank's business model is flawed, since people can come in and rob it with certain tools. It's not Microsoft's fault that DMCA is readily violated.
Personally, I'm not in favour of the law, but I know it is the law. I also know that Microsoft is certainly within their rights to ride their business model on this law.
The only thing immoral about the situation is that our politicians allow our laws to be manipulated to make it possible for a company like Microsoft to ensure that selling their product nets them a profit
Assuming you are refering to the DMCA, I'm not convinced that this is true to be honest. Ignoring the geek knowledge behind our opinions for a sec here, imagine that you were in the position to pass this law. It was presented to you very neatly, with a convenient laymans terms summary. You read the summary, which proposes that circumventing copy protection, which helps deal with piracy (a rapant problem). It also likens this to laws against breaking a lock. You don't necessarily need lotsa money to win these people over.
I'm betting you either work for MS, are an MS fanboi or you're a lawyer.
Funny you should say this, since I'm actually not any one of those three. I friggin' hate just about any MS product, I've never worked for them, and IANAL.
Come on Slashdot. You know should know that the problem of IP vs, well, nothing is more complex than this. You know that it's a balance to be struck.
I am quite aware of the benefits of this sort of invention, but the hardware was designed by Microsoft to run signed code, and signed code only. This is how the XBox makes money. Microsoft sells the units at a loss, so the only way they make any money with the current price tag is to sign the games for a cut of the profits. Using the hardware without providing Microsoft their profits may not be stealing, but it certainly could be construed as immoral.
Why do we have to live in a country where intellectual property and B.S. politics are put before scientific research and advancement?
It seems so simple to separate IP and research/advancement, but one undeniably helps the other. Maybe these researchers don't expect to patent this invention, or to sell it for profit, but most need the financial inscentive to invent in the first place. Certainly, if the XBox wasn't locked down and protected, it would cost a lot more.
Mathematics is not patentable. And MP3 decoding is pure mathematics
Yeah, but that's like saying that *insert some tangible invention here* is purely made up of elements, and these elements are protected by prior art. OK, not quite, but there is more than simply mathematics in compression. The packaging of the compressed data is an important distinction; It's not the process so much as it's the implementation.
I notice that both your examples refer to short term happiness, which fails to fulfill the needs of the person later. This is a different point to "true" happiness and "false" happiness. Applying this to the original argument, my point still stands. If the androids/government/corporations stop making us happy, or provide only short bursts of happiness separated with significant periods of unhappiness (i.e. short term happiness), then they would no longer be able to control us.
people are driven to purchase them because they have a false belief that the product will make them happy
The act of purchasing the product and the pursuit of happiness through consumerism can also be sources of happiness.
Please tell me the difference between thinking I'm happy and "true" happiness. They both register in the brain, they both make you feel...well...happy.
From the Simpsons: Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa Simpson: That's specious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money] Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. [Lisa eventually takes the money]
Corporations and government already control; It's not just Google. They provide our services, our law and order, our safety, our simplicity, our happiness. This is the way society works. If we are happy, if we are suriving and reproducing, we are fine. I don't know what you value in life, but I'm fine with relinquishing some control in order to be happy. I also know that as soon as they make us unhappy, they will no longer be able to control us. Tragedy? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I thought about the fact that you are the one footing the bill for this lock. You are purchasing it,you are consuming it, but you have absolutely no say in how it's used. And it restricts usage of the media that you purchased in the name of stopping pircay.
In other news, certain patterns of sound and light are subject to copyright restrictions, details at 11.
Come on. It's not so hard to understand. The fact that some patterns of sound and light are copyrighted doesn't make all usage of sound and light illegal. You know that.
I realise information wants to be free and all that, but the simple fact is that it currently isn't. And if we can't come up with better arguments than this, then it shall remain that way.
For some reason, I was under the impression that we already had some DMCA equivalent here. I guess not. However, that doesn't explain why I couldn't get libdvdcss from the Australian Ubuntu repositories.
Seriously though, the US is so completely culturally dominant, this sort of thing is inevitable. It's no secret that our country is snuggling up to the US, building relations, scratching each other's backs. This sort of thing was bound to happen sooner or later. Hell, the DMCA has spread far and wide. The law is staunchly backed by multi-national corporations that exist here too. Why would we be immune?
I certainly respect where you're coming from here, but there's something I don't think you appreciate.
Not meaning to troll here, but I've found that the liberal ideal revolves around giving people freedom by restricting the law. By demanding that it be followed word-for-word, by demanding education over legislation, by trying to iron out inconsistencies by reducing the powers of authority. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that the law is merely a tool for persecuting those they don't want around (be it for safety or purely selfish reasons). They don't tend to care if it goes beyond the law's juristiction, they just want the offending party outta there.
That seems to be where UMG coming from. They don't give a shit if the law is inconsisent, they're just want to permanently squash the healthy competition that YouTube (and P2P networks) provide(s).
Your sig is so appropriate for this discussion!
BTW, wouldn't you think that firmware would have some DRM system to prevent unsigned mods or even the Linux kernel from running?
You've just given me a great idea for recasting apple's TV commercials
Don't confuse your selfish motivations with "genuine" ethical feelings.
I think the submitter might be refering to the US. Let's face it, there are a LOT of /.ers out there who are at least a little concerned about the state of privacy in the US. This might have been the submitter's subtle way of encouraging a flamewar.
...what exactly is so Quiet about your _Desperation?
I'm just sayin' that I can sympathise with the courts on this one. It's hard to know who deserves it and who doesn't. Money isn't the only thing that makes the world go round.
Printer-friendly version for those who...
Umm... whoops.
Shit. I tried 1), but I couldn't find IE to download Firefox or Opera.
Damn *NIX! Why won't you die!?
We do hate *NIX right?
OMG MS will never die!!!!!
Oh wait...
Dear anti-RIAA lawyers,
Please ignore the parent's question, since (I hope) he speaks in jest. It's the clueless moderators who modded him interesting.
Your's faithfully, TheVelvetFlamebait
Seriously though, the answer to the question is simple. Don't share the RIAA's songs, don't format shift their CDs. If you want to be safe (which I certainly do), don't use their services at all. The answer is not that complicated.
Personally, I'm not in favour of the law, but I know it is the law. I also know that Microsoft is certainly within their rights to ride their business model on this law.
Assuming you are refering to the DMCA, I'm not convinced that this is true to be honest. Ignoring the geek knowledge behind our opinions for a sec here, imagine that you were in the position to pass this law. It was presented to you very neatly, with a convenient laymans terms summary. You read the summary, which proposes that circumventing copy protection, which helps deal with piracy (a rapant problem). It also likens this to laws against breaking a lock. You don't necessarily need lotsa money to win these people over.
Funny you should say this, since I'm actually not any one of those three. I friggin' hate just about any MS product, I've never worked for them, and IANAL.
I am quite aware of the benefits of this sort of invention, but the hardware was designed by Microsoft to run signed code, and signed code only. This is how the XBox makes money. Microsoft sells the units at a loss, so the only way they make any money with the current price tag is to sign the games for a cut of the profits. Using the hardware without providing Microsoft their profits may not be stealing, but it certainly could be construed as immoral.
It seems so simple to separate IP and research/advancement, but one undeniably helps the other. Maybe these researchers don't expect to patent this invention, or to sell it for profit, but most need the financial inscentive to invent in the first place. Certainly, if the XBox wasn't locked down and protected, it would cost a lot more.
The act of purchasing the product and the pursuit of happiness through consumerism can also be sources of happiness.
Please tell me the difference between thinking I'm happy and "true" happiness. They both register in the brain, they both make you feel...well...happy.
From the Simpsons:
Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa eventually takes the money]
Corporations and government already control; It's not just Google. They provide our services, our law and order, our safety, our simplicity, our happiness. This is the way society works. If we are happy, if we are suriving and reproducing, we are fine. I don't know what you value in life, but I'm fine with relinquishing some control in order to be happy. I also know that as soon as they make us unhappy, they will no longer be able to control us. Tragedy? I don't think so.