People's gullibility is their own damn problem. All a settlement means is that both parties agreed to something. If one -- obviously insane -- party says the terms were favorable to them, and you believe them without checking, then you're a fool.
It's not a matter of some DRM being good and some being bad. It's a matter of making restrictions on how DRM can be implemented. This will be a much easier sell to the public and the lawmakers than "no DRM", because one can say, "yes, we will protect music and movie companies, we just have to protect consumers as well."
What would this alternate, consumer-friendly technology that you mention look like? It sounds to me like it would just be the status quo.
I agree that Palladium will likely be buggy at first. But Microsoft has a history of coming out with laughable 1.0 versions, and it doesn't appear to have stopped Windows or Office from becoming market-dominating behemoths.
It would take more than a day for Apple to implement strong (Palladium- or TCPA-style) DRM. It requires support in application software, operating system, firmware, motherboard, keyboard, video card, monitor, and sound card, and I might have missed something.
You think it's overly optimistic to say that the right laws will be hard to get?
You would argue, then, that it's impossible?
The only alternative is to prevent DRM technology from being implemented. That looks even less likely to me. And there would be nothing to keep companies from trying again in a few years.
Yes, we certainly do need a serious revamp of intellectual property laws, not just copyright.
If the copyright laws were fair, would you object to people using DRM to enforce them?
Wouldn't it be nice if it were illegal to use DRM to create restrictions that are not allowed by law?
I never said that these things are going to happen, or that they're even likely. But they're possible. And it's said that "politics is the art of the possible."
I think it's time for us to get political. Those sensible laws are not going to lobby for themselves.
I didn't say that DRM should be "codified in the law books".
For an example of what I'm talking about, look to Europe. If a product is sold there with DRM that prevents users from exercising their legally- enshrined fair use rights, it is legally considered defective. I'm not sure what that implies -- perhaps it needs a warning label, perhaps it can't be sold at all.
That's the kind of legislation we need.
Of course Hollywood has more money than you. And I think that at least at first, DRM will only be used in anti-consumer ways. But that is not written in stone. DRM is a tool like any other.
I think Dan Gillmor is missing the point. DRM is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on. The question is not will we be able to resist DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it? With the right laws, the answer could be "the public". It will be hard to get the right laws, given the evil influences of Microsoft and the entertainment industry, but it's not a physical or moral impossibility.
I dunno about number 1. The owner of the company I work for shares my interest in jazz. He lit up when he realized there'd be someone else in the office who knew who Clifford Brown was.
I think one shouldn't try to be *cutesy* on one's resume, but that doesn't mean one can't be interesting.
Who cares if a fetus is a baby? I mean, people have always killed or "exposed" (left to die) children they couldn't care for. Nobody wants to do it, but people always have.
We're just organisms, and organisms all die sooner or later. What's the big deal if some of us die before ever getting to breathe? It's not like there's any shortage of babies in the world.
It depends what you want to do. My dual-450 MHz system is fast enough, subjectively, for all of my uses. Performance isn't everyone's #1 criterion, and neither is cost.
> At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an > administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, > disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official > asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and > physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer > told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else > because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said > of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Well, technically that's true, they didn't measure the pH of the candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are the parents?
People's gullibility is their own damn problem.
All a settlement means is that both parties agreed
to something. If one -- obviously insane -- party
says the terms were favorable to them, and you
believe them without checking, then you're a fool.
It's not a matter of some DRM being good and some
being bad. It's a matter of making restrictions
on how DRM can be implemented. This will be a
much easier sell to the public and the lawmakers
than "no DRM", because one can say, "yes, we will
protect music and movie companies, we just have
to protect consumers as well."
What would this alternate, consumer-friendly
technology that you mention look like? It sounds
to me like it would just be the status quo.
Speaking of missing the point.
I think this is a sensible analysis of the situation.
More to the point, when you can't watch movies
without DRM, how are you going to keep people
from implementing DRM for Linux?
Apple will use copy-protection the day it becomes ;-)
easy to digitally duplicate a $2000 piece of
hardware.
I agree that Palladium will likely be buggy at
first. But Microsoft has a history of coming
out with laughable 1.0 versions, and it doesn't
appear to have stopped Windows or Office from
becoming market-dominating behemoths.
It would take more than a day for Apple to
implement strong (Palladium- or TCPA-style) DRM.
It requires support in application software,
operating system, firmware, motherboard, keyboard,
video card, monitor, and sound card, and I might
have missed something.
You think it's overly optimistic to say that
the right laws will be hard to get?
You would argue, then, that it's impossible?
The only alternative is to prevent DRM technology
from being implemented. That looks even less
likely to me. And there would be nothing to keep
companies from trying again in a few years.
Yes, we certainly do need a serious revamp of
intellectual property laws, not just copyright.
If the copyright laws were fair, would you object
to people using DRM to enforce them?
Wouldn't it be nice if it were illegal to use DRM
to create restrictions that are not allowed by law?
I never said that these things are going to happen,
or that they're even likely. But they're possible.
And it's said that "politics is the art of the
possible."
I think it's time for us to get political. Those
sensible laws are not going to lobby for themselves.
I didn't say that DRM should be "codified in the
law books".
For an example of what I'm talking about, look to
Europe. If a product is sold there with DRM that
prevents users from exercising their legally-
enshrined fair use rights, it is legally
considered defective. I'm not sure what that
implies -- perhaps it needs a warning label,
perhaps it can't be sold at all.
That's the kind of legislation we need.
Of course Hollywood has more money than you.
And I think that at least at first, DRM will only
be used in anti-consumer ways. But that is not
written in stone. DRM is a tool like any other.
I think Dan Gillmor is missing the point. DRM
is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on.
The question is not will we be able to resist
DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it?
With the right laws, the answer could be "the
public". It will be hard to get the right laws,
given the evil influences of Microsoft and the
entertainment industry, but it's not a physical
or moral impossibility.
There's plenty of Linux talent native to
Australia. At least, I've met several Aussies
with abundant unix clue, without even trying.
USD400 gets you a 10-gig iPod, not a 20-gig.
Just picking nits, I think you make a good point.
I dunno about number 1. The owner of the company
I work for shares my interest in jazz. He lit up
when he realized there'd be someone else in the
office who knew who Clifford Brown was.
I think one shouldn't try to be *cutesy* on one's
resume, but that doesn't mean one can't be
interesting.
You don't give atheists enough credit.
Who cares if a fetus is a baby? I mean, people
have always killed or "exposed" (left to die)
children they couldn't care for. Nobody wants to
do it, but people always have.
We're just organisms, and organisms all die sooner
or later. What's the big deal if some of us die
before ever getting to breathe? It's not like
there's any shortage of babies in the world.
Can you repost that? Your post somehow ended
up full of line noise.
You folks are confused. /bin/sh is bash as
of 10.2 (previously it was zsh). The shell
that's assigned to users by default is tcsh.
Ask yourself two questions:
1) Why is Apple a "giant"?
2) What are this startup's chances of being
around in five years?
> The idea that one button is "easier" is stupid.
Never worked support, have we?
It depends what you want to do. My dual-450 MHz
system is fast enough, subjectively, for all of
my uses. Performance isn't everyone's #1
criterion, and neither is cost.
In a similar vein, I used spamassassin to train ifile.
I'll use bogofilter as soon as it has a simple installation procedure for BSD.
"Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing"
ACGT
Cool!
> At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an
> administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee,
> disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official
> asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and
> physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer
> told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else
> because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said
> of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Well, technically that's true, they didn't measure the pH of the candidate.