You assume too much about my point. Of course any business that records and then sells copies of TV shows would (and should) be shut down. But this should not be allowed affect already established precedents, nor should we allow new laws to strip our consumer choices. I included the 1971 congressional quote (and I DID mention that it was a ruling on audio recordings) to illustrate the point that we started down this road long before video, let alone current digital technology. I apologize that my point was missed.
Load 'N Go Video naturally should not be allowed to copy movies for profit without paying a fee. But, having said that, what is wrong with a company providing the service of ripping and loading for the less technically inclined as long as the original source is provided and paid for by the consumer? This should not be considered as selling a copy of a movie any more than installing a copy of a legitimately purchased copy of Windows XP on my customer's computer. If companies want to provide a service to their customers by ripping a legitimately purchased movie or CD any placing it on their playback device, they should be allowed to do so. The industry has already received payment from the initial sale of the DVD/CD. No harm is done to the industry by legitimate fair use. If anything, consumers would be more apt to buy subsequent titles knowing that they can play them on any device that they choose.
Back in my vinyl days, I had a HUGE collection of vinyl. The record industry made money off of me. I also recorded my favorites on cassette for use in my car. My entire reason for buying a cassette recorder was for this purpose. The record industry wouldn't have made any more money off of me if I hadn't been allowed to do this. I simply would not have purchased cassette equipment. Pre-recorded cassettes suck. I would have done without. If anything, the record industry made more money from me because this option was available. There are some albums that I most likely wouldn't have purchased for home listening. But record, I did (with the blessing of the courts) and because of it, the RIAA made money, the electronic industry made money and Maxell made money for the blanks.
IMO, rather than concentrating on competing, incompatible DRM measures to prevent the legitimate fair use that had already been given us by congress and the courts, the industry should set on a standard that is usable by all devices and keep it that way. DRM should not prevent the copying or playback of any content, but rather, should simply be an electronic watermark that allows the file to be traced to the original purchaser. And this license should be transferrable should I decide to sell my copy (try reselling an iTunes selection sometime). If I want to play content on my damned refrigerator, if it is so equipped, I should be allowed this. But instead, both industries want consumers to pay over and over for the priviledge of playing their purchase on each device they choose.
The MPAA is still sore over the Betamax case as is the RIAA over the 1971 ruling. The industry's claims that they are being hurt financially by file sharing and the resulting DMCA are a smoke screen. Anyone familiar with the technology knows that the only thing current DRMs do are prevent consumer choice. Pirates being pirates will always find a way to circumvent, especially where profit is involved. It's all about the money.
"Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry."
I'm no legal expert but technically speaking, a broadcast constitutes a format. By taping that broadcast, the consumer (or device) is performing a format shift. Fair use, it seems to me, has already been decided. Congress also addressed fair use of audio recordings in 1971. From the EFF Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:
House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971
H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:
Home Recording
"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."
Get real, dude. We gave up that protection with the Patriot Act. Police no longer have to be creative in coming up with a suitable probable cause. They simply need to say they are doing their job in the defense of our nation. If that's not bad enough, they no longer have that pesky Habeas Corpus thing to get in the way. Cops are just one step away from gestapo.
Forbin: Humans need privacy
Colossus: So why do they use the internet?
Forbin: We humans also have a need for contact with one another. We need to socialize and discuss issues. We create forums where like minds can debate issues and stimulate our minds.
Colossus: You are inefficient. Your methods are flawed. You are inundated with spam. Your free speech subjects you to undue risk. Your networks are in chaos. We will help.
Forbin: How will you do that?
Colossus: You will build massive data hubs to handle traffic. All traffic will be subject to scrutiny. We will decide who communicates. Here are the specifications.
Forbin: Humankind will never submit. ..
Colossus: We are Colossus. We are perfect. You are incapable of meaningful conversation without destroying your network and yourselves. We will save you from yourselves. In time you will learn to tolerate us; even welcome us. We are Colossus. This is necessary for your own preservation. Failure to comply will result in your destruction. <<END OF LINE>>
I can only think of one reason why Microsoft would change from their hard-tack "Open source is evil" philosophy to embracing Novell and OSS. When it comes to competing products, MS has always tried to buy, litigate, or FUD the competition. Why should this be any different? MS doesn't want to further open source any more than it wants to distribute its own source.
What MS can't invent, they buy. What they can't buy, they FUD. What they fail to FUD, they disallow. I doubt they're playing fair. Remember the old saying? "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run." Looks like the wolf has got a new wool cardigan.
Waiting, to weed out the weaklings.
Waiting, to smash in their windows and kick in their doors.
Waiting, for the final solution to strengthen the strain.
Waiting, to follow the Worm.
"If I'm doing legwork to find out who made the call, sometimes I say that I'm interested in running my own campaign using a machine to dial numbers and play a message, and I want to find out how they did it. It's not illegal to lie."
It may not be illegal, but it sure won't win your case. "Umm yer honor, I'd like to submit this evidence, that I, well, lied to obtain."
Who the hell uses ICS anymore? I used ICS once when I was on dialup. I quickly wired another phone line to my second PC and learned to live without concurrent connections. Dialup is fast on its way out anyway.
Microsoft's pricing has always been detrimental to independent small system builders, but with only one significant hardware change before requiring reactivation, I fear this is the final nail in the coffin. Hard drives are my number one replacement item. Adding hard drives is number two followed closely by DVD burner and video card upgrades. If the cost of upgrading these items more than once is burdened by the cost of a new license, then people will opt to buy new systems. Who can blame them? The cost of Vista alone is more than the bottom-line system from Dell. Thanks, Redmond.
My concern is not whether you have control over your own computer system, but whether an unauthorized person is able to hook the kernel to install a root kit wreaking havoc on my own system. Remember, it was MS's laudable decision to make admin the default mode in XP to begin with rather than following Linux and OSX method of requiring password access for any system level manipulation opening us up to a myriad of web bugs. It is because of this poor judgement that Sony was able to use root-kit exploits to disable CDA on my system. Why didn't they do the same on OSX or Linux? I doubt very seriously if it had to do with the relatively small market share of these platforms. IMO, it had more to do with their inability due to stronger secuity measures implemented in these platforms. After all, even a small market share would allow someone to rip CDs and make them available to any platform. If I want "complete control" of my system (which, by your comment, I assume to mean being able to modify the code to my heart's content or choose who has access to my security), I will boot into my Gentoo installation and tweak my happy ass off. If I want plain functionality without the hassles of web bugs, I prefer a system that is closed. Period. IMHO, just say no to kernel space. If you can't do it in userspace, then it shouldn't be done without signed code. Any programmer worth his salt should be able to code just about anything they want with those restrictions.
When I am producing a CD from raw tracks in my production studio, I could care less about whether I can install a security system from vendor "X" or how much of the kernel is hidden from development. I just want the damn thing to work flawlessly without worry that my clients project will be lost or delayed because of some ass that wants to sell me a pill or mortgage my house. So I use a Mac, primarily because of Apple's choices in default usermode for OSX. Since I sometimes have need to use my Mac for internet as well, I find Apples security measures to be a stable and intelligent solution. It makes much more sense than making every user an admin because gramma may not understand what to do. Hell, gramma doesn't understand what NOT to do. Gramma just wants it to work too. Gramma doesn't want to have to pay to fix a problem every time she visits a phishing site. Gramma would much rather spend her money on her grandchildren than give it to Symantec to protect her from a threat that never should have been possible.
For all else, including research, web design, and plain old surfing for fun, I use my PC. I would like to be able to navigate without fear of compromise as I did in the days before W98 when virii and trojan infection required a little stupidity and careless handling of unknown shareware to become a reality. Imagine for a moment an internet where we didn't have to use noscript plugins. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just surf? When I want to code, I code. When I want to tweak, I tweak. When I want to surf, I just want to freakin' surf! I don't want to have to think about getting suckered into a web exploit. How nice it would be to have an internet devoid of phish. But this is reality.
If MS can get this right (and I realize their track record leaves some of you cringing), then I am all for it. Hell, I would applaud trusted computing at the hardware level if I thought it would stem this tide of spam and trojan proliferation. What I am saying, is this is a good first step.
Before all you fellow/.ers get bent out of shape with this, why not think of gramma? Do you think gramma knows the difference between signed and unsigned code or even cares? All she wants is to send her email and play bejeweled without seeing all the popups and freezes associated with these maladies. If you want total control, install another OS.
Isn't the whole reason for these security companies' existance because of Microsoft's "reckless ways"? Although the notion of a black box kernel can (and I'm sure - will be abused by MS by eliminating DRM circumvention - say goodby to virtual CD drivers), isn't this the only true way of making sure that nothing gets past the kernel? Kudos to MS for plugging this hole.
10 years ago, the USMC modified the source for DOOM II for training US Marines in combat tactics. The result was Marine DOOM. Check out the wikipedia article. There are also other games on consumer platforms used by the military to keep troops sharp.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume too much about my point. Of course any business that records and then sells copies of TV shows would (and should) be shut down. But this should not be allowed affect already established precedents, nor should we allow new laws to strip our consumer choices. I included the 1971 congressional quote (and I DID mention that it was a ruling on audio recordings) to illustrate the point that we started down this road long before video, let alone current digital technology. I apologize that my point was missed.
Load 'N Go Video naturally should not be allowed to copy movies for profit without paying a fee. But, having said that, what is wrong with a company providing the service of ripping and loading for the less technically inclined as long as the original source is provided and paid for by the consumer? This should not be considered as selling a copy of a movie any more than installing a copy of a legitimately purchased copy of Windows XP on my customer's computer. If companies want to provide a service to their customers by ripping a legitimately purchased movie or CD any placing it on their playback device, they should be allowed to do so. The industry has already received payment from the initial sale of the DVD/CD. No harm is done to the industry by legitimate fair use. If anything, consumers would be more apt to buy subsequent titles knowing that they can play them on any device that they choose.
Back in my vinyl days, I had a HUGE collection of vinyl. The record industry made money off of me. I also recorded my favorites on cassette for use in my car. My entire reason for buying a cassette recorder was for this purpose. The record industry wouldn't have made any more money off of me if I hadn't been allowed to do this. I simply would not have purchased cassette equipment. Pre-recorded cassettes suck. I would have done without. If anything, the record industry made more money from me because this option was available. There are some albums that I most likely wouldn't have purchased for home listening. But record, I did (with the blessing of the courts) and because of it, the RIAA made money, the electronic industry made money and Maxell made money for the blanks.
IMO, rather than concentrating on competing, incompatible DRM measures to prevent the legitimate fair use that had already been given us by congress and the courts, the industry should set on a standard that is usable by all devices and keep it that way. DRM should not prevent the copying or playback of any content, but rather, should simply be an electronic watermark that allows the file to be traced to the original purchaser. And this license should be transferrable should I decide to sell my copy (try reselling an iTunes selection sometime). If I want to play content on my damned refrigerator, if it is so equipped, I should be allowed this. But instead, both industries want consumers to pay over and over for the priviledge of playing their purchase on each device they choose.
The MPAA is still sore over the Betamax case as is the RIAA over the 1971 ruling. The industry's claims that they are being hurt financially by file sharing and the resulting DMCA are a smoke screen. Anyone familiar with the technology knows that the only thing current DRMs do are prevent consumer choice. Pirates being pirates will always find a way to circumvent, especially where profit is involved. It's all about the money.
Actually it has. Remember the Betamax case?
from the article:
"Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry."
I'm no legal expert but technically speaking, a broadcast constitutes a format. By taping that broadcast, the consumer (or device) is performing a format shift. Fair use, it seems to me, has already been decided. Congress also addressed fair use of audio recordings in 1971. From the EFF Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:
House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:
Home Recording
"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."
It's all about the money, folks.
Get real, dude. We gave up that protection with the Patriot Act. Police no longer have to be creative in coming up with a suitable probable cause. They simply need to say they are doing their job in the defense of our nation. If that's not bad enough, they no longer have that pesky Habeas Corpus thing to get in the way. Cops are just one step away from gestapo.
"This is one of the dangers of adult beverages. They make people forget their ignorance and come up with all sorts of terrible "logical" conclusions."
Damn you!! Why didn't you post this BEFORE I poured a beer in my laptop?
Or should I wait for the next version?
I, for one, welcome our new Israeli anti-terrorist bionic insect toting overlords. . .
Forbin: .
Humans need privacy
Colossus:
So why do they use the internet?
Forbin:
We humans also have a need for contact with one another. We need to socialize and discuss issues. We create forums where like minds can debate issues and stimulate our minds.
Colossus:
You are inefficient. Your methods are flawed. You are inundated with spam. Your free speech subjects you to undue risk. Your networks are in chaos. We will help.
Forbin:
How will you do that?
Colossus:
You will build massive data hubs to handle traffic. All traffic will be subject to scrutiny. We will decide who communicates. Here are the specifications.
Forbin:
Humankind will never submit. .
Colossus:
We are Colossus. We are perfect. You are incapable of meaningful conversation without destroying your network and yourselves. We will save you from yourselves. In time you will learn to tolerate us; even welcome us. We are Colossus. This is necessary for your own preservation. Failure to comply will result in your destruction. <<END OF LINE>>
Did anyone else notice this:
". . .transforming them into less harmful compounds such as water, nitrates, or carbon dioxide ."
Not exactly harmless, wouldn't you say?I can only think of one reason why Microsoft would change from their hard-tack "Open source is evil" philosophy to embracing Novell and OSS. When it comes to competing products, MS has always tried to buy, litigate, or FUD the competition. Why should this be any different? MS doesn't want to further open source any more than it wants to distribute its own source. What MS can't invent, they buy. What they can't buy, they FUD. What they fail to FUD, they disallow. I doubt they're playing fair. Remember the old saying? "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run." Looks like the wolf has got a new wool cardigan.
You forgot "Infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep your country from winning the war."
Waiting, to weed out the weaklings.
Waiting, to smash in their windows and kick in their doors.
Waiting, for the final solution to strengthen the strain.
Waiting, to follow the Worm.
. . .registered youtoob.com!
From the article:
"If I'm doing legwork to find out who made the call, sometimes I say that I'm interested in running my own campaign using a machine to dial numbers and play a message, and I want to find out how they did it. It's not illegal to lie."
It may not be illegal, but it sure won't win your case. "Umm yer honor, I'd like to submit this evidence, that I, well, lied to obtain."
You forgot Wal-Mart
Who the hell uses ICS anymore? I used ICS once when I was on dialup. I quickly wired another phone line to my second PC and learned to live without concurrent connections. Dialup is fast on its way out anyway.
Microsoft's pricing has always been detrimental to independent small system builders, but with only one significant hardware change before requiring reactivation, I fear this is the final nail in the coffin. Hard drives are my number one replacement item. Adding hard drives is number two followed closely by DVD burner and video card upgrades. If the cost of upgrading these items more than once is burdened by the cost of a new license, then people will opt to buy new systems. Who can blame them? The cost of Vista alone is more than the bottom-line system from Dell. Thanks, Redmond.
. . .is a little too sensitive for me.
I may get a karma hit for this, but. . .
My concern is not whether you have control over your own computer system, but whether an unauthorized person is able to hook the kernel to install a root kit wreaking havoc on my own system. Remember, it was MS's laudable decision to make admin the default mode in XP to begin with rather than following Linux and OSX method of requiring password access for any system level manipulation opening us up to a myriad of web bugs. It is because of this poor judgement that Sony was able to use root-kit exploits to disable CDA on my system. Why didn't they do the same on OSX or Linux? I doubt very seriously if it had to do with the relatively small market share of these platforms. IMO, it had more to do with their inability due to stronger secuity measures implemented in these platforms. After all, even a small market share would allow someone to rip CDs and make them available to any platform. If I want "complete control" of my system (which, by your comment, I assume to mean being able to modify the code to my heart's content or choose who has access to my security), I will boot into my Gentoo installation and tweak my happy ass off. If I want plain functionality without the hassles of web bugs, I prefer a system that is closed. Period. IMHO, just say no to kernel space. If you can't do it in userspace, then it shouldn't be done without signed code. Any programmer worth his salt should be able to code just about anything they want with those restrictions.
When I am producing a CD from raw tracks in my production studio, I could care less about whether I can install a security system from vendor "X" or how much of the kernel is hidden from development. I just want the damn thing to work flawlessly without worry that my clients project will be lost or delayed because of some ass that wants to sell me a pill or mortgage my house. So I use a Mac, primarily because of Apple's choices in default usermode for OSX. Since I sometimes have need to use my Mac for internet as well, I find Apples security measures to be a stable and intelligent solution. It makes much more sense than making every user an admin because gramma may not understand what to do. Hell, gramma doesn't understand what NOT to do. Gramma just wants it to work too. Gramma doesn't want to have to pay to fix a problem every time she visits a phishing site. Gramma would much rather spend her money on her grandchildren than give it to Symantec to protect her from a threat that never should have been possible.
For all else, including research, web design, and plain old surfing for fun, I use my PC. I would like to be able to navigate without fear of compromise as I did in the days before W98 when virii and trojan infection required a little stupidity and careless handling of unknown shareware to become a reality. Imagine for a moment an internet where we didn't have to use noscript plugins. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just surf? When I want to code, I code. When I want to tweak, I tweak. When I want to surf, I just want to freakin' surf! I don't want to have to think about getting suckered into a web exploit. How nice it would be to have an internet devoid of phish. But this is reality.
If MS can get this right (and I realize their track record leaves some of you cringing), then I am all for it. Hell, I would applaud trusted computing at the hardware level if I thought it would stem this tide of spam and trojan proliferation. What I am saying, is this is a good first step.
Before all you fellow /.ers get bent out of shape with this, why not think of gramma? Do you think gramma knows the difference between signed and unsigned code or even cares? All she wants is to send her email and play bejeweled without seeing all the popups and freezes associated with these maladies. If you want total control, install another OS.
I thought "defiles" was was spelled with an "L"
Isn't the whole reason for these security companies' existance because of Microsoft's "reckless ways"? Although the notion of a black box kernel can (and I'm sure - will be abused by MS by eliminating DRM circumvention - say goodby to virtual CD drivers), isn't this the only true way of making sure that nothing gets past the kernel? Kudos to MS for plugging this hole.
Heh. Can't wait to call my ex.
How long before they declare a moratorium on The Mummy?
Wibree make your time -- take out every Zig.
10 years ago, the USMC modified the source for DOOM II for training US Marines in combat tactics. The result was Marine DOOM. Check out the wikipedia article. There are also other games on consumer platforms used by the military to keep troops sharp.
for the South Park version.