I do, yes. Both Windows and DRM have reached their respective peaks (coincidence?), and now, increasingly, people are shying away from both. Home users will be migrating to OSX and business users will be migrating to Linux. By the time Windows 8 rolls around in 6 or so years, I reckon Microsoft will actually have to start listening to their customers.
I predict it will be considerably leaner (relative to current hardware specifications), and DRM that only protects the copying of the OS itself, not the files on board
Given this evidence I scanned the letter and posted it to let them know their date was off. Their response was that they couldn't use the letter as proof the date was wrong because they only used published sources of information. Unfortunately the only published sources they had were a handful of websites currently online that had the wrong date written down (no doubt copied from each other).
Not that you necessarily care right now, but you could consider sending the scanned copy of the letter to the published sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be an aggregation of published information on the web. You need change the sources, not it itself.
I don't understand this "Windows 7 is better than gawd" crap
I don't think anyone feels like that. If you replace "gawd" with "vista", on the other hand, you get a reasonably low bar for Windows 7 to clear, and lo and behold, some people actually think it might clear it.
It is Vista plus a service pack. It fixes NOTHING that was wrong with Vista.
It lowers the system requirements (the real ones, not the ones on paper), and it fixes UAC, so that it's more configurable and less annoying. That's enough for me to say there's a fair chance it'll be better than Vista.
In English, the term "myriad" is most commonly used to refer to a large number of an unspecified size. In this way "myriad" can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Thus both "there are myriad people outside" and "there is a myriad of people outside" are correct.
It wouldn't hurt to offer a wiped hard-drive as a purchase option. Even if 1% of people would use it, it would cost extremely little to implement, and it would definitely not hurt other sales.
There's a fine line between saving other people's souls (which is mandatory in the Christian faith) and controlling all media to keep it squeaky clean (which is what Christians bring to the party).
Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent... unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
So I was actually wrong. Only anti-copying provisions may be circumvented, but format shifting isn't allowed. Here's another interesting paragraph:
The broadest of these exceptions, section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(E), establishes an ongoing administrative rule-making proceeding to evaluate the impact of the prohibition against the act of circumventing such access-control measures. This conduct prohibition does not take effect for two years. Once it does, it is subject to an exception for users of a work which is in a particular class of works if they are or are likely to be adversely affected by virtue of the prohibition in making noninfringing uses. The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who is to consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information.
So, if we are likely to be "adversely affected" when using a copyrighted work, not for infringement, then, upon the ruling of the Librarian of Congress, we may be eligible for an exception to the anti-circumvention clause. There are also some other specific exceptions. They include expected exceptions, like libraries, non-profit organisations, and education facilities. It also includes a clause that allows courts to make an exception for the protection of minors against offensive internet content. I have no idea how circumvention would protect minors, but who am I to complain about an exception? I did, however, find the following exceptions interesting:
Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits circumvention, and the development of technological means for such circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under copyright law.
Assuming we lawfully come into possession of a circumvention utility, we may circumvent for interoperability purposes, like, for example, to make sure the DRMed WMAs we acquired legally for free actually work with other music players. For the sake of interoperability and analysing the elements of the DRM, of course.
Encryption research (section 1201(g)). An exception for encryption research permits circumvention of access control measures, and the... development of the technological means to do so, in order to identify flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies.
This speaks for itself. It doesn't, however, permit you to distribute the circumvention measures.
Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person.
This one I find really interesting. If the technological measure infringes on
No! You are, in fact, wrong. Circumvention is not illegal, but distributing circumvention tools is. If you manage to accidentally develop a circumvention tool, then you may use it to circumvent. You may also keep the files, as they are perfectly legal. You may not distribute the information to anyone else.
I guess the rational is that people who own the media won't want to circumvent (I know, false premise) and they are not the targets of the legislation, rather the people who obtain bit-for-bit copies, and can't play the files.
You don't get a certificate with your CD or MP3 that says "this artist is an authentic descendant of Elbonian yak callers, and his music is guaranteed an authentic rendition of that ancient culture" (well, and actually means it).
Hey, that's the title of my next album, you insensitive clod!
If enforcement costs so much, why do we bother doing it? Especially since it is having absolutely no effect in shutting down piracy.
[Citation needed]
Enforcement makes people afraid to break the law. The fact that we have murders still doesn't prove that police are having "absolutely no effect".
Besides, the point is moot, since we were talking about how piracy costs. It's a cost, unjustified or not.
Loss of sales huh. So how much money did Adobe lose when I pirated my copy of Photoshop?
Plenty. If the GIMP didn't do a comparable job for a lot less, and is copyright was being enforced properly, then there would be plenty of people who would, sometimes grudgingly, fork over the money to pay for Adobe's software. I don't lose any sleep over it, because the GIMP was made independently of photoshop, and the GIMP's success is, in fact, does not rely on photoshop, thus making it valid and fair competitor. Pirates, on the other hand, rely on the people they are ripping off to keep in business. They aren't competing, they're leeching. They grow fat off the work of others, and perish when they decide it isn't worth it.
Of course. But the lower the price goes, more people will buy it. If Photoshop were $5, or even $50, sure some people would still pirate it, but millions more would just purchase it. Haven't you ever taken a basic economics course?
I take it from that, you have. In that case, you'd know that the free market relies on the assumption that consumers are savvy, and they'll optimise the value of their purchases. If indeed the free market works, then they will pirate, ignoring enforcement of copyright law. It doesn't matter if the price is $5, $50, or $500, the identical free option is always better value, and always more appealing. Now, since people still are brought up (mostly) on parents who preach "thou shalt not steal", who are taught to pay people honestly for what they receive, and who know the dangers of turning to the dark side of the law, we are still a little hesitant to act like the savvy and greedy consumers we're supposed to be, but if enforcement stops, and paying for media stops being fashionable, and this passes through generations, then we will invariably choose the cheapest option. It's only a matter of time if we stop copyright enforcement.
But the thousands of legitimate users certainly do.
Assuming they exist and will continue to exist, what makes you think we want to bear the costs? Seriously? Why would we foot the bill for your self-indulgent orgy of entertainment at our expense? Why would we punish the moral, and greatly reward the destructively selfish?
Enforcement costs, loss of sales through unfair competition. Pirates get their entertainment on the copyright holder's dime, and guess who pays for it in the end? I'll give you a hint: not the copyright holder.
If anything, piracy should lower costs, since rampant piracy (compared to legit sales) indicates that the product in question is priced too high.
Piracy indicates that people are greedy, and not much more. No matter how low the price goes, people will still be able to pirate it for free. And free doesn't pay the costs of production.
Seriously, this is basic stuff. I think you said the word moron a little too soon (or perhaps, not soon enough).
And they want you to think that you're getting it for free.
Piracy was never free. It always came with costs, just not to the personal pocketbook. The costs were to the people around them, and perhaps long term costs to everyone's civil liberties.
It's kind of ironic, since pirates always wanted to think it was free. Now the RIAA wants pirates to get what they want, and here comes the whining.
I checked, and found the same thing, except that I, not being a US citizen, did not fall under the jurisdiction of an "ESPN affiliate". It gave me the opportunity to select my ISP from a list, in which I plugged in the phoney zip code 12345 (I know it's a real code) and said my ISP is "Time Warner". It then proceeded to give me this message:
Get Access to ESPN360.com Video
Sorry, ESPN360.com is not available through your selected ISP, Time Warner. Use the links below to tell Time Warner you want ESPN360.com as part of your broadband package, or find an alternative provider who offers ESPN360.com today. TAKE ACTION NOW!
It then gives me two options, either to send a message to Time Warner explaining to them that I want access to ESPN360.com, giving me three separate checked check-boxes that indicate my consent to receiving information about teams, Disney, and third parties in that order, and informing me that correspondence may not just be limited to email, but also postal mail. Chilling.
Oh, and that "TAKE ACTION NOW!" was not my emphasis.
If the current one works, then piracy won't be a problem.
I never said that. The business model requires piracy to be kept in check. It's not perfect, but it happens to be the most successful business model so far. It would also be a helluva lot more successful if we could eliminate most of piracy. It would make distribution easier, benefiting publishers, the artists working for them, and especially, indie artists who can't survive piracy sapping their few profits. I can't say that culture would sky-rocket, since we are already most of the way there, but I can say we'd see significant improvement. I can also say that if we condone piracy, then we have a lot to lose.
You got it nearly all wrong.
Said the pot.
It's not that the average pirate's taste matches the average legitimate media buyer's taste, it's that the average pirate is the above average media buyer. Those are 4 different studies in 4 different countries.
Proving what? That pirates buy media? It's not really a surprise, and it doesn't disprove my point. It shows that guilt is still in play here, and that pirates, given the choice of acquiring the same product for free, and paying for it, around 50% of the time, they decide to pay for at least a small part of it (just to ease their conscience, you see). They allow people to reaffirm their inane self-justifications for their destructive hedonism, so that they continue to dull and erode that guilt that helps prop up our culture. It's a testament to cognitive dissonance, and the triumph of feel-good solutions over reason and common sense.
Nothing. Can you believe it? I sent them a lovely cake and everything! It's probably something to do with the way that keep decrying their business tactics, encouraging people to seek alternatives, and complaining about privacy invasions (and that's not even mentioning my comments regarding DRM and copy protection!). Oh well.
It's really, really, really a sad state of affairs when people are so closed-minded as to think the only way someone can disagree with them is through astroturfing. Sometimes you have to deal with the idea that some people have opposing viewpoints. It's the first step to realising what an idiot you really are.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't suppose pen and paper are legal, are they?
I do, yes. Both Windows and DRM have reached their respective peaks (coincidence?), and now, increasingly, people are shying away from both. Home users will be migrating to OSX and business users will be migrating to Linux. By the time Windows 8 rolls around in 6 or so years, I reckon Microsoft will actually have to start listening to their customers.
I predict it will be considerably leaner (relative to current hardware specifications), and DRM that only protects the copying of the OS itself, not the files on board
Not that you necessarily care right now, but you could consider sending the scanned copy of the letter to the published sources. Wikipedia is supposed to be an aggregation of published information on the web. You need change the sources, not it itself.
The stupid condescensions are the slave-trading of the modern day.
Does that clear a few things up?
I don't think anyone feels like that. If you replace "gawd" with "vista", on the other hand, you get a reasonably low bar for Windows 7 to clear, and lo and behold, some people actually think it might clear it.
It lowers the system requirements (the real ones, not the ones on paper), and it fixes UAC, so that it's more configurable and less annoying. That's enough for me to say there's a fair chance it'll be better than Vista.
From Wikipedia:
It wouldn't hurt to offer a wiped hard-drive as a purchase option. Even if 1% of people would use it, it would cost extremely little to implement, and it would definitely not hurt other sales.
I wonder if IE will be counted in the number of running applications? If so, I can imagine other browsers will have a hard time competing with IE.
That's cute, but after their initial release, the Windows version is supported by Microsoft, thus taking out of the test-at-your-own-risk beta stage.
There's a fine line between saving other people's souls (which is mandatory in the Christian faith) and controlling all media to keep it squeaky clean (which is what Christians bring to the party).
Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.
Link please?
The law overview
So I was actually wrong. Only anti-copying provisions may be circumvented, but format shifting isn't allowed. Here's another interesting paragraph:
So, if we are likely to be "adversely affected" when using a copyrighted work, not for infringement, then, upon the ruling of the Librarian of Congress, we may be eligible for an exception to the anti-circumvention clause. There are also some other specific exceptions. They include expected exceptions, like libraries, non-profit organisations, and education facilities. It also includes a clause that allows courts to make an exception for the protection of minors against offensive internet content. I have no idea how circumvention would protect minors, but who am I to complain about an exception? I did, however, find the following exceptions interesting:
Assuming we lawfully come into possession of a circumvention utility, we may circumvent for interoperability purposes, like, for example, to make sure the DRMed WMAs we acquired legally for free actually work with other music players. For the sake of interoperability and analysing the elements of the DRM, of course.
This speaks for itself. It doesn't, however, permit you to distribute the circumvention measures.
This one I find really interesting. If the technological measure infringes on
No! You are, in fact, wrong. Circumvention is not illegal, but distributing circumvention tools is. If you manage to accidentally develop a circumvention tool, then you may use it to circumvent. You may also keep the files, as they are perfectly legal. You may not distribute the information to anyone else.
I guess the rational is that people who own the media won't want to circumvent (I know, false premise) and they are not the targets of the legislation, rather the people who obtain bit-for-bit copies, and can't play the files.
Apparently their inability to stop is entirely the *AA's fault for being such pricks.
Either that or it's not a problem, and they can quit any time.
Hey, that's the title of my next album, you insensitive clod!
Fixed that for you. I pay for recordings of sound when I buy music. I don't pay for a piece of the musician's raw talent.
[Citation needed]
Enforcement makes people afraid to break the law. The fact that we have murders still doesn't prove that police are having "absolutely no effect".
Besides, the point is moot, since we were talking about how piracy costs. It's a cost, unjustified or not.
Plenty. If the GIMP didn't do a comparable job for a lot less, and is copyright was being enforced properly, then there would be plenty of people who would, sometimes grudgingly, fork over the money to pay for Adobe's software. I don't lose any sleep over it, because the GIMP was made independently of photoshop, and the GIMP's success is, in fact, does not rely on photoshop, thus making it valid and fair competitor. Pirates, on the other hand, rely on the people they are ripping off to keep in business. They aren't competing, they're leeching. They grow fat off the work of others, and perish when they decide it isn't worth it.
I take it from that, you have. In that case, you'd know that the free market relies on the assumption that consumers are savvy, and they'll optimise the value of their purchases. If indeed the free market works, then they will pirate, ignoring enforcement of copyright law. It doesn't matter if the price is $5, $50, or $500, the identical free option is always better value, and always more appealing. Now, since people still are brought up (mostly) on parents who preach "thou shalt not steal", who are taught to pay people honestly for what they receive, and who know the dangers of turning to the dark side of the law, we are still a little hesitant to act like the savvy and greedy consumers we're supposed to be, but if enforcement stops, and paying for media stops being fashionable, and this passes through generations, then we will invariably choose the cheapest option. It's only a matter of time if we stop copyright enforcement.
Assuming they exist and will continue to exist, what makes you think we want to bear the costs? Seriously? Why would we foot the bill for your self-indulgent orgy of entertainment at our expense? Why would we punish the moral, and greatly reward the destructively selfish?
Enforcement costs, loss of sales through unfair competition. Pirates get their entertainment on the copyright holder's dime, and guess who pays for it in the end? I'll give you a hint: not the copyright holder.
Piracy indicates that people are greedy, and not much more. No matter how low the price goes, people will still be able to pirate it for free. And free doesn't pay the costs of production.
Seriously, this is basic stuff. I think you said the word moron a little too soon (or perhaps, not soon enough).
Perhaps people didn't want to pay for internet services they could get elsewhere for free.
Piracy was never free. It always came with costs, just not to the personal pocketbook. The costs were to the people around them, and perhaps long term costs to everyone's civil liberties.
It's kind of ironic, since pirates always wanted to think it was free. Now the RIAA wants pirates to get what they want, and here comes the whining.
I checked, and found the same thing, except that I, not being a US citizen, did not fall under the jurisdiction of an "ESPN affiliate". It gave me the opportunity to select my ISP from a list, in which I plugged in the phoney zip code 12345 (I know it's a real code) and said my ISP is "Time Warner". It then proceeded to give me this message:
It then gives me two options, either to send a message to Time Warner explaining to them that I want access to ESPN360.com, giving me three separate checked check-boxes that indicate my consent to receiving information about teams, Disney, and third parties in that order, and informing me that correspondence may not just be limited to email, but also postal mail. Chilling.
Oh, and that "TAKE ACTION NOW!" was not my emphasis.
Yeah, don't let the door hit you on the brain on the way out!
I never said that. The business model requires piracy to be kept in check. It's not perfect, but it happens to be the most successful business model so far. It would also be a helluva lot more successful if we could eliminate most of piracy. It would make distribution easier, benefiting publishers, the artists working for them, and especially, indie artists who can't survive piracy sapping their few profits. I can't say that culture would sky-rocket, since we are already most of the way there, but I can say we'd see significant improvement. I can also say that if we condone piracy, then we have a lot to lose.
Said the pot.
Proving what? That pirates buy media? It's not really a surprise, and it doesn't disprove my point. It shows that guilt is still in play here, and that pirates, given the choice of acquiring the same product for free, and paying for it, around 50% of the time, they decide to pay for at least a small part of it (just to ease their conscience, you see). They allow people to reaffirm their inane self-justifications for their destructive hedonism, so that they continue to dull and erode that guilt that helps prop up our culture. It's a testament to cognitive dissonance, and the triumph of feel-good solutions over reason and common sense.
Nothing. Can you believe it? I sent them a lovely cake and everything! It's probably something to do with the way that keep decrying their business tactics, encouraging people to seek alternatives, and complaining about privacy invasions (and that's not even mentioning my comments regarding DRM and copy protection!). Oh well.
It's really, really, really a sad state of affairs when people are so closed-minded as to think the only way someone can disagree with them is through astroturfing. Sometimes you have to deal with the idea that some people have opposing viewpoints. It's the first step to realising what an idiot you really are.