What the heck? What makes you think there's a connection between minimalism and whether somebody drinks?
I know a drinker who lives in a small, mostly-empty, apartment and drives a 10-year-old (but reliable) car even though we both have the same job and he could easily afford a house, or a bigger apartment, and car payments.
I also know more than a couple non-drinkers who seem to buy new pickup trucks every couple months and live in a huge house with a plasma TV.
I'd like to see some evidence of a link between drinking and minimalist lifestyles before I even venture to consider your point.
Why do submissions start so promisingly, with people who seem intelligent and informed, and then turn into some kind of weird rant about how much COBOL code is on the Internet-- as if that mattered in some way?
Story submitters: It's a given now that Slashdot basically has no editing what-so-ever, so please self-edit a bit before hitting go. Thank you.
If the company is small, and wouldn't need more than one IT person anyway, then hiring a Unix/open source admin is more expensive than hiring a Windows admin. And the additional cost of the Windows software isn't enough to make up the difference. Whether the other advantages are is something I don't know, but you can't just gloss over the payroll cost as if they don't exist... almost all companies spend significantly more on payroll than on IT products, including Windows/Office/etc. If a $300 copy of Office costs less than the $500 training program on OpenOffice, than it's worth it to buy Microsoft Office.
My main problem with your definition is that it seems to equate actions which I view as fundamentally different. For example, under your definition, if Bob walks into a bookstore and walks out with a book without paying for it then he's "stolen" it. If Joe walks into the store, whips out his digital camera and takes pictures of each page of a book, then he's "stolen" the book. Don't these two actions seem different to you?
WTF does it matter? The end result is the same: the book was stolen.
We could call it "weebooweeboo" if you want, but it's still the exact same result.
I've also tried to explain that "downloading free movies and music" is irrelevant to my decision to oppose DRM for reasons that I've laid out in previous posts.
It certainly doesn't strengthen your case any. You're like the guy at the mall trying to convince me that marijuana can be used to treat glaucoma with the bloodshot eyes. I'm sure he's right, and I'm sure it *can* treat glaucoma, but the only reason he's telling you that is because he wants to smoke pot legally. You'll forgive me if I don't bother listening to the message of hypocrites.
Ok, but then you have to ask why they haven't been marked (by a developer) as "need more info". I think the original post still applies; regardless of how bad the bugs are, they haven't been looked at and that's a huge problem.
MS just can't compare when it comes to small to mid size business servers. FOSS installs faster, has fewer issues when hardening, and in general is easier to secure, particularly when we are talking about using only one or two services.
What about the payroll?
Remember, experienced Unix/open source admins cost twice as much as Windows admins. Assuming the open source software set is better (which I'm not sure I buy), is it ENOUGH better to justify the additional payroll?
I think it's grammatically incorrect to use the word "steal" in this context, the right phrase is "commit copyright infringement".
In my world, where I'm not deluding myself, when you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission you're stealing. That applies to a commercial company that takes GPL code and includes it in a closed-source program, that includes people who make a copy (take something) without bothering to ask the copyright holder if it's ok. You can call it what you want, but since you do seem to know what I mean when I say "stealing", you'll have to excuse me if I don't change my words to make you feel better about your theft.
In some instances, music that I would pirate I would not buy, even if I was unable to obtain the music through P2P networks.
Oh, so it's ok if you steal as long as it's something you wouldn't have bought normally? I mean, I don't usually buy Ferraris, but I guess by your standards it's perfectly fine if I find one on the street hotwire and steal it, right? It's not like I would have bought a Ferrari anyway.
Look, regardless of WHY you pirate (and I don't really give a shit WHY a man commits a crime, just THAT he does), it doesn't change the fact that you are stealing the material. You can't justify that in any rational way.
I didn't address that point because I don't think that an industry whose profits are based on the assumption that their customers are too stupid or lazy to examine alternatives is on solid ground, financially speaking.
So now you're just concerned about the RIAA's bottom line? The only reason you bring it up is because you think maybe their financial footing might break loose under them? Very noble of you.
But the fact of the matter is that those "stupid and lazy" video game customers have been just as "stupid and lazy" over the entire course of copy-protected PC games, and yet the copy protection still serves its purpose.
(Thanks for the insult, by the way. I actually buy video games, therefore I'm stupid and lazy! Brilliant.)
I never denied that "getting free shit" wasn't an incentive to download, I was only saying that it was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which was ideological opposition to DRM.... except in the case of video games, where you think DRM is appropriate. So, again, what you're arguing against is CERTAIN TYPES of DRM, not the concept of DRM. And the only reason you're arguing against those certain types is because you like downloading free movies and music, and you want it to be easier to pirate it. (After-all, if you were really against all DRM, you'd be against signed drivers in Windows, you'd be against PDF and Office document protection features, you'd be against console video game copy protection, etc.)
Re:We need a bill of rights for the user.
on
Why Software Sucks
·
· Score: 1
Mac OS X doesn't have it (unless you count Fink) and it seems to have a pretty good reputation for quality. Hmm, strange, that...
A couple years back I worked with a medical company that moved a bunch of people into a new building that had been finished from scratch with everyone involved approving the blueprints. There were tons of unnecessary doors, giant steel beams in the way in a lot of offices, and the "server closet" on the second floor ended up being right next to a sink.
You're deluding yourself if you think actual architects always produce a perfect project.
No, it just "performs the contextual menu operation." Just like in Windows that menu key on the keyboard "performs the contextual menu operation" as well as the right mouse button. It's no different. When people say "right-click" what they mean is "open a contextual menu." How that's done can vary from OS to OS, or computer to computer, but in all cases there's both a keyboard method (the contextual menu key or control-left click) and a mouse way (right click).
Based on the explosive growth of P2P networks, do you really think that 95% of people would voluntarily pay for content that they could get for free?
Read my statement in the original post. The 95% includes:
1) The people who don't know about the crack and are happy paying for a copy 2) The people who do know about the crack, but would rather pay for a copy 3) The people who do know about the crack, but don't know how to apply it. (i.e. mod chips, or other cracks that take quite a bit of technical knowledge.)
The 5% is just the people who want to steal it, have the know-how to steal it, and actually go through with stealing it. Obviously, it's just a rough guess number, but I wager the RIAA/MPAA/video game industry have much more accurate figures.
(snip) (2): I'll be honest here: it's free, and I'm a cheapskate. (snip)
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. I don't need to read the rest. It's buried deep in your statement, but there the truth comes out.
Just give every copy of the game a CD-key, and make the server check each gamer's CD-key when they log in to play online.
That works for PC games, but what about console games? I'm sure Blockbuster would *love* that for their rental business... every time they get a game back they have to call the publisher for a new code!
One of the great usability rules that you've hit upon here is this:
Software should never ask a user a question it could easily find the answer to itself
For example, a program should never ask you what brand of sound card you have installed because it can easily ask the OS for it. It should never ask what homepage you want because it can (on Macintosh) ask the OS for it, or it can just check the homepage of another browser installed. (Firefox does this well when you tell it to import IE settings on Windows. On Macintosh, last I tried, it didn't... oh well.)
So anyway, since Thunderbird obviously supports all those connection methods, it would be trivial for some programmer to write a function that would try each in turn, use some simple logic to figure out which is the best, and stores it in the preferences for next time.
All you said is true, but we're *still* more liberal about allowing (legal) immigrants than every other developed nation I've looked into. Good luck moving to New Zealand without a year-long guaranteed job waiting, a PHD and tons of cash.
Of course the part environmentalists always forget to quote is that we also produce 25% (or more)of the world's GDP. Amazing, it looks like all that energy goes to good use!
Just as most RPGs have learned, adding in pointless "points" to a game gets border-line OCD players to play your game for hours and hours in order to "complete" it entirely. That's pretty much all there is to it. Right now, there's a guy grinding away on "reputation" in World of Warcraft, not to get the reward, but just because he's not already "exhaulted" with that particular faction. It doesn't matter that the "reputation" quests are mind-numbingly boring and pointless.
I know what a "darknet" is, I just didn't know there was "the emerging" one. I guess I'm not in the loop.
Regardless, as I've argued, it still doesn't matter if everyone *can* get the crack instantly as long as 95% of people don't use the crack for whatever reason. The DRM still works. The whole Darknet thing isn't going to "take down" DRM, it's just an annoyance that has to be accounted for by the media companies.
Maybe one reason that lots of modern movies, games and music are sequels or dismissed as "generic and uninspired", or "pandering to the lowest common denominator" is precisely because companies are making them for the sole purpose of generating a profit rather than for the love of the craft.
No, it's called "nostalgia." Movies, games, and music have always been that way. You're just forgetting the 10,000 Pac-Man knock-offs, the 200 Doom knock-offs, the 50 Final Fantasy knock-offs and remembering only the good and original games. I'm sick of this "quality is worse" crap wasn't treated as a fact by Slashdot instead of just an opinion by grumpy aging programmers.
I'd like to see some proof that movies/music and games are worse than they have been in the past. But all I see every year is, "record number of games sold! Halo 2 best-selling console game ever! record number of movie tickets!" That tells me that the quality is either unchanged, or better, than it was in the past.
Nevertheless, I must stress that I'm not anti-DRM because I want to download free music and TV shows and movies. Granted, I do that, but that's mainly because there is no legal way for me to obtain DRM-free media at a reasonable cost.
Right, you and the other 20,000 people on Slashdot. "I'm pirating not because I just want stuff for free, but because there's no legal way for me to get it! Because, in my delusional world, DVDs, CDs, cable and satellite TV don't exist!" Christ. You're not fooling anybody.
If you REALLY wanted to enact change and do the whole, "civil disobedience" thing, maybe you should, you know, make a sacrifice and not download the pirated materials, huh? Maybe I'd have a teeny bit of respect for your position if I knew you weren't just a freeloader. Unfortunately, I wager 90% of the people in this thread rallying against DRM are just in it for free music and movies, yourself included.
All you want to do is break copyright law easier, you don't give a crap whether the law changes to something more reasonable or not. It's the same reason marijuana never will be legalized. Not because legalization is a bad idea, but because the vast majority of the people promoting legalization are all stupid, high, on other drugs, or self-defeating in some other way.
What I'm not willing to do is support a company that's under the delusion that DRM is acceptable.
First of all, after that last sentence I quoted, I wouldn't be one to judge whether other people are delusional or not.
Secondly, you're not willing to support a company that uses DRM and yet you agree that the video game industry would suffer greatly if they didn't use it. So... you think nobody should buy videogames? You never addressed that one. But obviously you don't think DRM is all that bad if you're not against its use on videogames.
A PDF that can't be edited or printed today remains uneditable and unprintable when the copyright expires.
That's not an argument against DRM, that's an argument about Adobe's specific implementation of DRM. There's no reason DRM can't put things in the public domain when the time comes.
If I put "the user can't print this document" in my copyright notice, then you don't have the right to print it. (Companies that print music put disclaimers like this on their music all the time, except for photocopying and not printing.) The DRM in the PDF file just enforces that right that I already have. Whether you think that's "bad" or not, it's not wrong by the word and intent of the law.
I guess that's why they call it "intellectual property." Sorry, you're just spouting the same double-think that the GPL people think that restricting how you can use code makes code more "free."
Besides, if you want to protect your "intellectual property", don't put it out in the wild.
And that's just spouting the "well DRM doesn't work so it shouldn't exist" argument that makes no sense at all.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. I concede that some uses of DRM are harmful, but to say the entire TECHNOLOGY of DRM should be banned is moronic... it's just as moronic as saying every use of RFID tags should be banned because there's a *small* possibility somebody might abuse it. It's a ridiculous argument that's nothing more than lightly cloaked fear of technology.
1) Stop saying "Orwellian." I read Slashdot a few minutes each day, and I probably end up seeing the word "Orwellian" about 40,000 times a week. Criminy.
2) (or over the emerging darknet) Huh?
3) What about video game piracy? You might consider video games too locked-down, but I don't think anybody disputes that the DRM on Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube games is a bad thing. Without it, you'd end up with another Dreamcast-- a console that loses tons of sales because the games are easily-duplicated and ends up in the crapper. The only restriction Xbox/PS2/Gamecube DRM really institutes is "you can only play this game on the console it's published for with the disk it's shipped on," Is that "too strict?" Really?
Sure, video game DRM gets broken very quickly, but since 95% of video game buyers either are honest, don't know about the crack, or don't know how to apply the crack, the system still works. I've seen no evidence that a DRM crack distributed over the net ("dark" or otherwise) will significantly defeat the purpose of DRM.
The problem is that almost all the people on Slashdot rallying against DRM are really rallying against "DRM that prevents them from getting free music, TV shows, and movies." Nobody here gives a crap about the DRM on console games, or the DRM on PDF files that gives the creator of those files more freedom than they would have otherwise. Or the DRM that allows only signed device drivers to run so your computer blue-screens less often.
You got further than I did. I'm hung up at the second sentence.
It trades in automated drones (prone to malfunction and detection) for real live people who (of course) have the option of not actually clicking anything, thus theoretically making their clicks harder to identify as 'fraudulent.'
Of course when you write (of course) with constant parenthetical statements (prone to misunderstandings and pointless complication) in the sentence, then use single-quotes for (apparently) 'no' reason, how could you (not you specifically, but 'you' in the general case) possibly understand it?
In this hypothetical situation, it's *my* document that *I* own *I* gave you, and I think that I should have the right to turn off printing if I want. You haven't argued against this point, instead you started talking about Adobe for some reason.
Please, tell me how my using DRM to manage my own property is bad. I'm waiting.
You cannot technically DRM protect content in a way which will allow legal fair use for the purchaser of the product.....period.
Well, ok, but that only applies to a certain type of DRM, like what Apple is doing in the iTunes music store. So you're basically agreeing with the original poster there, that DRM is only bad when it's abused.
If I use DRM to (for example) prevent my PDF file from being printed, do you have a problem with that? If so, why? What about Windows XP preferring signed binaries for device drivers? That's a type of DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
What the heck? What makes you think there's a connection between minimalism and whether somebody drinks?
I know a drinker who lives in a small, mostly-empty, apartment and drives a 10-year-old (but reliable) car even though we both have the same job and he could easily afford a house, or a bigger apartment, and car payments.
I also know more than a couple non-drinkers who seem to buy new pickup trucks every couple months and live in a huge house with a plasma TV.
I'd like to see some evidence of a link between drinking and minimalist lifestyles before I even venture to consider your point.
Why do submissions start so promisingly, with people who seem intelligent and informed, and then turn into some kind of weird rant about how much COBOL code is on the Internet-- as if that mattered in some way?
Story submitters: It's a given now that Slashdot basically has no editing what-so-ever, so please self-edit a bit before hitting go. Thank you.
If the company is small, and wouldn't need more than one IT person anyway, then hiring a Unix/open source admin is more expensive than hiring a Windows admin. And the additional cost of the Windows software isn't enough to make up the difference. Whether the other advantages are is something I don't know, but you can't just gloss over the payroll cost as if they don't exist... almost all companies spend significantly more on payroll than on IT products, including Windows/Office/etc. If a $300 copy of Office costs less than the $500 training program on OpenOffice, than it's worth it to buy Microsoft Office.
My main problem with your definition is that it seems to equate actions which I view as fundamentally different. For example, under your definition, if Bob walks into a bookstore and walks out with a book without paying for it then he's "stolen" it. If Joe walks into the store, whips out his digital camera and takes pictures of each page of a book, then he's "stolen" the book. Don't these two actions seem different to you?
WTF does it matter? The end result is the same: the book was stolen.
We could call it "weebooweeboo" if you want, but it's still the exact same result.
I've also tried to explain that "downloading free movies and music" is irrelevant to my decision to oppose DRM for reasons that I've laid out in previous posts.
It certainly doesn't strengthen your case any. You're like the guy at the mall trying to convince me that marijuana can be used to treat glaucoma with the bloodshot eyes. I'm sure he's right, and I'm sure it *can* treat glaucoma, but the only reason he's telling you that is because he wants to smoke pot legally. You'll forgive me if I don't bother listening to the message of hypocrites.
Ok, but then you have to ask why they haven't been marked (by a developer) as "need more info". I think the original post still applies; regardless of how bad the bugs are, they haven't been looked at and that's a huge problem.
MS just can't compare when it comes to small to mid size business servers. FOSS installs faster, has fewer issues when hardening, and in general is easier to secure, particularly when we are talking about using only one or two services.
What about the payroll?
Remember, experienced Unix/open source admins cost twice as much as Windows admins. Assuming the open source software set is better (which I'm not sure I buy), is it ENOUGH better to justify the additional payroll?
I have to tell you that my cat is sitting right here on my desk and she's PISSED!
I think it's grammatically incorrect to use the word "steal" in this context, the right phrase is "commit copyright infringement".
... except in the case of video games, where you think DRM is appropriate. So, again, what you're arguing against is CERTAIN TYPES of DRM, not the concept of DRM. And the only reason you're arguing against those certain types is because you like downloading free movies and music, and you want it to be easier to pirate it. (After-all, if you were really against all DRM, you'd be against signed drivers in Windows, you'd be against PDF and Office document protection features, you'd be against console video game copy protection, etc.)
In my world, where I'm not deluding myself, when you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission you're stealing. That applies to a commercial company that takes GPL code and includes it in a closed-source program, that includes people who make a copy (take something) without bothering to ask the copyright holder if it's ok. You can call it what you want, but since you do seem to know what I mean when I say "stealing", you'll have to excuse me if I don't change my words to make you feel better about your theft.
In some instances, music that I would pirate I would not buy, even if I was unable to obtain the music through P2P networks.
Oh, so it's ok if you steal as long as it's something you wouldn't have bought normally? I mean, I don't usually buy Ferraris, but I guess by your standards it's perfectly fine if I find one on the street hotwire and steal it, right? It's not like I would have bought a Ferrari anyway.
Look, regardless of WHY you pirate (and I don't really give a shit WHY a man commits a crime, just THAT he does), it doesn't change the fact that you are stealing the material. You can't justify that in any rational way.
I didn't address that point because I don't think that an industry whose profits are based on the assumption that their customers are too stupid or lazy to examine alternatives is on solid ground, financially speaking.
So now you're just concerned about the RIAA's bottom line? The only reason you bring it up is because you think maybe their financial footing might break loose under them? Very noble of you.
But the fact of the matter is that those "stupid and lazy" video game customers have been just as "stupid and lazy" over the entire course of copy-protected PC games, and yet the copy protection still serves its purpose.
(Thanks for the insult, by the way. I actually buy video games, therefore I'm stupid and lazy! Brilliant.)
I never denied that "getting free shit" wasn't an incentive to download, I was only saying that it was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which was ideological opposition to DRM.
Mac OS X doesn't have it (unless you count Fink) and it seems to have a pretty good reputation for quality. Hmm, strange, that...
A couple years back I worked with a medical company that moved a bunch of people into a new building that had been finished from scratch with everyone involved approving the blueprints. There were tons of unnecessary doors, giant steel beams in the way in a lot of offices, and the "server closet" on the second floor ended up being right next to a sink.
You're deluding yourself if you think actual architects always produce a perfect project.
No, it just "performs the contextual menu operation." Just like in Windows that menu key on the keyboard "performs the contextual menu operation" as well as the right mouse button. It's no different. When people say "right-click" what they mean is "open a contextual menu." How that's done can vary from OS to OS, or computer to computer, but in all cases there's both a keyboard method (the contextual menu key or control-left click) and a mouse way (right click).
Based on the explosive growth of P2P networks, do you really think that 95% of people would voluntarily pay for content that they could get for free?
Read my statement in the original post. The 95% includes:
1) The people who don't know about the crack and are happy paying for a copy
2) The people who do know about the crack, but would rather pay for a copy
3) The people who do know about the crack, but don't know how to apply it. (i.e. mod chips, or other cracks that take quite a bit of technical knowledge.)
The 5% is just the people who want to steal it, have the know-how to steal it, and actually go through with stealing it. Obviously, it's just a rough guess number, but I wager the RIAA/MPAA/video game industry have much more accurate figures.
(snip) (2): I'll be honest here: it's free, and I'm a cheapskate. (snip)
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. I don't need to read the rest. It's buried deep in your statement, but there the truth comes out.
Just give every copy of the game a CD-key, and make the server check each gamer's CD-key when they log in to play online.
That works for PC games, but what about console games? I'm sure Blockbuster would *love* that for their rental business... every time they get a game back they have to call the publisher for a new code!
One of the great usability rules that you've hit upon here is this:
Software should never ask a user a question it could easily find the answer to itself
For example, a program should never ask you what brand of sound card you have installed because it can easily ask the OS for it. It should never ask what homepage you want because it can (on Macintosh) ask the OS for it, or it can just check the homepage of another browser installed. (Firefox does this well when you tell it to import IE settings on Windows. On Macintosh, last I tried, it didn't... oh well.)
So anyway, since Thunderbird obviously supports all those connection methods, it would be trivial for some programmer to write a function that would try each in turn, use some simple logic to figure out which is the best, and stores it in the preferences for next time.
Well, I read Slashdot and I think those anti-Microsoft people are jerks.
All you said is true, but we're *still* more liberal about allowing (legal) immigrants than every other developed nation I've looked into. Good luck moving to New Zealand without a year-long guaranteed job waiting, a PHD and tons of cash.
Of course the part environmentalists always forget to quote is that we also produce 25% (or more)of the world's GDP. Amazing, it looks like all that energy goes to good use!
Just as most RPGs have learned, adding in pointless "points" to a game gets border-line OCD players to play your game for hours and hours in order to "complete" it entirely. That's pretty much all there is to it. Right now, there's a guy grinding away on "reputation" in World of Warcraft, not to get the reward, but just because he's not already "exhaulted" with that particular faction. It doesn't matter that the "reputation" quests are mind-numbingly boring and pointless.
I know what a "darknet" is, I just didn't know there was "the emerging" one. I guess I'm not in the loop.
Regardless, as I've argued, it still doesn't matter if everyone *can* get the crack instantly as long as 95% of people don't use the crack for whatever reason. The DRM still works. The whole Darknet thing isn't going to "take down" DRM, it's just an annoyance that has to be accounted for by the media companies.
Maybe one reason that lots of modern movies, games and music are sequels or dismissed as "generic and uninspired", or "pandering to the lowest common denominator" is precisely because companies are making them for the sole purpose of generating a profit rather than for the love of the craft.
No, it's called "nostalgia." Movies, games, and music have always been that way. You're just forgetting the 10,000 Pac-Man knock-offs, the 200 Doom knock-offs, the 50 Final Fantasy knock-offs and remembering only the good and original games. I'm sick of this "quality is worse" crap wasn't treated as a fact by Slashdot instead of just an opinion by grumpy aging programmers.
I'd like to see some proof that movies/music and games are worse than they have been in the past. But all I see every year is, "record number of games sold! Halo 2 best-selling console game ever! record number of movie tickets!" That tells me that the quality is either unchanged, or better, than it was in the past.
Nevertheless, I must stress that I'm not anti-DRM because I want to download free music and TV shows and movies. Granted, I do that, but that's mainly because there is no legal way for me to obtain DRM-free media at a reasonable cost.
Right, you and the other 20,000 people on Slashdot. "I'm pirating not because I just want stuff for free, but because there's no legal way for me to get it! Because, in my delusional world, DVDs, CDs, cable and satellite TV don't exist!" Christ. You're not fooling anybody.
If you REALLY wanted to enact change and do the whole, "civil disobedience" thing, maybe you should, you know, make a sacrifice and not download the pirated materials, huh? Maybe I'd have a teeny bit of respect for your position if I knew you weren't just a freeloader. Unfortunately, I wager 90% of the people in this thread rallying against DRM are just in it for free music and movies, yourself included.
All you want to do is break copyright law easier, you don't give a crap whether the law changes to something more reasonable or not. It's the same reason marijuana never will be legalized. Not because legalization is a bad idea, but because the vast majority of the people promoting legalization are all stupid, high, on other drugs, or self-defeating in some other way.
What I'm not willing to do is support a company that's under the delusion that DRM is acceptable.
First of all, after that last sentence I quoted, I wouldn't be one to judge whether other people are delusional or not.
Secondly, you're not willing to support a company that uses DRM and yet you agree that the video game industry would suffer greatly if they didn't use it. So... you think nobody should buy videogames? You never addressed that one. But obviously you don't think DRM is all that bad if you're not against its use on videogames.
A PDF that can't be edited or printed today remains uneditable and unprintable when the copyright expires.
That's not an argument against DRM, that's an argument about Adobe's specific implementation of DRM. There's no reason DRM can't put things in the public domain when the time comes.
If I put "the user can't print this document" in my copyright notice, then you don't have the right to print it. (Companies that print music put disclaimers like this on their music all the time, except for photocopying and not printing.) The DRM in the PDF file just enforces that right that I already have. Whether you think that's "bad" or not, it's not wrong by the word and intent of the law.
I guess that's why they call it "intellectual property." Sorry, you're just spouting the same double-think that the GPL people think that restricting how you can use code makes code more "free."
Besides, if you want to protect your "intellectual property", don't put it out in the wild.
And that's just spouting the "well DRM doesn't work so it shouldn't exist" argument that makes no sense at all.
Sorry, I'm not convinced. I concede that some uses of DRM are harmful, but to say the entire TECHNOLOGY of DRM should be banned is moronic... it's just as moronic as saying every use of RFID tags should be banned because there's a *small* possibility somebody might abuse it. It's a ridiculous argument that's nothing more than lightly cloaked fear of technology.
Ok,
1) Stop saying "Orwellian." I read Slashdot a few minutes each day, and I probably end up seeing the word "Orwellian" about 40,000 times a week. Criminy.
2) (or over the emerging darknet) Huh?
3) What about video game piracy? You might consider video games too locked-down, but I don't think anybody disputes that the DRM on Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube games is a bad thing. Without it, you'd end up with another Dreamcast-- a console that loses tons of sales because the games are easily-duplicated and ends up in the crapper. The only restriction Xbox/PS2/Gamecube DRM really institutes is "you can only play this game on the console it's published for with the disk it's shipped on," Is that "too strict?" Really?
Sure, video game DRM gets broken very quickly, but since 95% of video game buyers either are honest, don't know about the crack, or don't know how to apply the crack, the system still works. I've seen no evidence that a DRM crack distributed over the net ("dark" or otherwise) will significantly defeat the purpose of DRM.
The problem is that almost all the people on Slashdot rallying against DRM are really rallying against "DRM that prevents them from getting free music, TV shows, and movies." Nobody here gives a crap about the DRM on console games, or the DRM on PDF files that gives the creator of those files more freedom than they would have otherwise. Or the DRM that allows only signed device drivers to run so your computer blue-screens less often.
You got further than I did. I'm hung up at the second sentence.
It trades in automated drones (prone to malfunction and detection) for real live people who (of course) have the option of not actually clicking anything, thus theoretically making their clicks harder to identify as 'fraudulent.'
Of course when you write (of course) with constant parenthetical statements (prone to misunderstandings and pointless complication) in the sentence, then use single-quotes for (apparently) 'no' reason, how could you (not you specifically, but 'you' in the general case) possibly understand it?
What does Abobe have to do with anything?
In this hypothetical situation, it's *my* document that *I* own *I* gave you, and I think that I should have the right to turn off printing if I want. You haven't argued against this point, instead you started talking about Adobe for some reason.
Please, tell me how my using DRM to manage my own property is bad. I'm waiting.
You cannot technically DRM protect content in a way which will allow legal fair use for the purchaser of the product.....period.
Well, ok, but that only applies to a certain type of DRM, like what Apple is doing in the iTunes music store. So you're basically agreeing with the original poster there, that DRM is only bad when it's abused.
If I use DRM to (for example) prevent my PDF file from being printed, do you have a problem with that? If so, why? What about Windows XP preferring signed binaries for device drivers? That's a type of DRM.