Now can they please reach the same decision with those MS patents?
3055 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Now can they please reach the same decision with those MS patents?
Let's say a bullet costs $1 (I have no idea what the cost actually is).
How much does this one cost and how accurate is Private Snuffy?
If Private Snuffy hits one time in ten, that's $10 to hit the intended target.
If this bullet costs any more than $10, it does not make economic sense.
Although it does bring into play the Chris Rock theory on gun control. Make the guns cheap, but the bullets so hideously expensive that no one can afford to shoot.
MS has two VoIP products. Skype and Office Communicator/Communication Server.
They both use proprietary protocols that block other clients.
One is decentralised, one not.
One works, but can't do multi-person video.
One can do multi-person video, but is a buggy sack of crap the crashes all the time.
By combining the two, MS might just get one product that actually works!
Ah - dust, decay and fungi. Yup, sounds like MS Office to me!
If you sing the PRS want your money (or will try to get it) BBC Story
There have also been cases where agencies similar to the PRS (whatever the one in Germany is called) have pressed for fees, despite the music used being Creative Commons and within the bounds of the license.
These buggers would charge you each time to recollect part of a movie/song if they could.
I'll pick two points, just for starters:
1) ACTA was negotiated behind closed doors, if it hadn't been for a few leaks there would have even less known. This is wrong in any democracy.
2) The further entrenchment of DRM is also (e.g. forcing ISP to remove DRM counter-measures) is, IMHO, wrong.
There are of course, many more. Point 1) is probably the most important by far. No law should ever be passed in a democracy without judicial oversight. Period. Point 2) just happens to really grate my carrot.
If they passed a law that said you had to beat yourself in the face with a meat tenderiser, you'd applaud it as a way to remove aesthetic discrimination whilst you pound yourself and your family to a pulp; wouldn't you?
This law is wrong.
"they should not have more of a direct link to their fans"
"they should now have more of a direct link to their fans"
And I see there is at least one anti-freedom, anti-speech downvote already. Nice.
"However the criminalisation of any method of bypassing DRM technology is odious."
Bingo. I buy a BluRay (say), I have an HTPC. It makes sense to me to get the movie on to the HTPC so I can watch it from my TVs/PCs. Or maybe I want to transcode it down To do this I need to by-pass the DRM.
I am now a criminal.
For what, exactly?
I am not going to share it with 10 brazillion people or start my own disc fab or something.
I own a few pieces of equipment that have had their security measures by-passed. I do not illegal with these either, they just now perform functions the original designers never intended.
DRM is nothing more than an obstacle to fair use. By-passing should not be a crime (as DRM should not exist to being with). Making many copies of the by-passed material is already a crime. Why do we need ACTA, SOPA, PIPA et al?
The current laws are perfectly adequate (in fatc, the current laws go too far, but anyway...). They managed to take down Megaupload with current laws (and deprive goodness know how many people of their own material - but who care about the public?)
It's about the only option left!
Copyright infringement is bad, ok? But I doubt the problem is as big as is made out.
Infringement could be cut drastically by the majors simply providing the public with the service they want. No DRM, no region locking, fair price, multiple codecs (for those who can't transcode).
Yes, some companies will go to the wall.
Yes, some artists will see a massive fall in pay.
Yes, many people will lose their jobs.
Many new companies will appear.
Many artists will see an increase in pay (they should not have more of a direct link to their fans).
Many new jobs will be created.
Our culture will no longer be held hostage to corporate interests.
I still credit the EU with at least some level of honesty on how ACTA was bought and paid for by corporate interests. It gives me that extra urge to vote Pirate the next time I get the chance.
Thinking about it - as ACTA has had zero public and democratic scrutiny, could there be an appeal lodged?
How dare these elected officials stand-up for democracy and due process. It is repugnant and perverted in the extreme.
The unelected councils met, the money was paid, the deal was done. It is high time that these SERVANTS learn their place and do as they are told!
Free speech? Free speech? Europe's economy is in the toilet and this shower stand-up for free speech? Where is the profit in that? No profit, no taxes. Work it out, retards!
And as for taxes, if countries like Luxembourg and the UK were not doing so much to reduce taxes (thank you, Mr. Hartnett) the economy would be in an even worse state. High taxes means less profit which means fewer jobs. Work it out!
Dear god, it makes my skin crawl to think of their be-suited thieves standing up for people's right to make duplicates of what they have bought. If people don't buy the same thing four times, WHERE IS THE PROFIT?
ACTA is a just a righteous law that will enshrine and protect the profits of hard-working and innovative companies. Without those companies you will have NOTHING. Learn what side your bread is buttered on.
Copying is theft. Moving that file onto your HDD is THEFT! Nothing less. You should be in jail! Each copy of a file costs a starving artist their next meal, you heartless, hearless bastard. I hope you can sleep at night with the suffering you cause!
ACTA for profit!
ACTA for jobs!
ACTA for life!
...all the marketing people want whizzo graphics, flashing lights etc to "deliver the message on our cores values" or some such crap. This has a few side-effects:
1) Pages get bigger and bigger;
2) It gets harder and harder to make them cross-platform;
3) Accessibility goes out the window.
I say good on the RNIB. I wonder if they will promote Trisquel to their members too?
It should be "Please Track" with the assumption of "Do Not Track" unless the consumer has given informed consent (and that means no pre-filled check boxes or other shite).
A DNT opt-out cookie (or whatever) can't work as the consumer has to opt-out in each browser on each OS.
And consumer privacy trumps anyone's profits. Or it should do.
...do crap for money. This is news?
Seriously, if a celeb says anything for or against a product the only question you should ask is "How much did that opinion cost?"
Just as any bill an MP tables should raise the question "How much did that opinion cost?"
But what's the suitable punishment for these irrelevant egoists? How about 1 hour helping a diabetics/obesity charity for each calorie in a "Snickers"? Should keep them busy and out of our hair for about 318 hours.
Correct, they want to make you buy again and again.
Got some rare recording or something similar you'd like to leave to someone? Just how does one do that with digital media?
And, of course, they could at any time revoke your access and you'd lose everything.
Pop into the movie store, but 5 for £20 (or whatever the deal is), rip to HDD, watch wherever I bloody well please, in whatever format I bloody well please, on whatever I bloody well please, and whenever I bloody well please.
Illegal? Given SOPA/PIPA/ACTA et al, it probably will be.
Immoral? Not at all. I am not distributing it to all and sundry or profiting. It's all on my systems, in my house and only accessible to my family (who could always just go Old Skool and use the disc anyway).
For some DRM locked crap that I won't be able to transcode, lend to friends or give away once I am finished? For that reduced level of use they need to drop the price by £10.
Any they wonder why people use unlocked copies. Sweet Raptor-riding Jay-zuz.
Exactly. With a physical book (say) I can just hand it over. Simple.
With a digital copy, "lending" it would be copying. In some cases that is frowned upon and thus it is DRM locked to my device (or whatever). Upshot is I can't lend it any more, nor can I easily transfer it to somewhere else for my own use. (Not an issue with the likes of Project Gutenberg).
So in this regard the digital copy is less useful than the dead-tree edition. Trying to do what anyone would call "reasonable" with the digital copy winds up with one being in trouble.
Then you have to consider libraries etc.
Are you telling me you never made a mix-tape? That's piracy!
We are social creatures, we share. We always have done, we will always try to. The corporates are trying to legislate against something that is fundamental to our nature and to the cultures we construct. It's friggin' lunacy!
He's referring to the thing you normally bang on about, using someone else's ideas without payment. Ad companies have been caught ripping of the style/ideas first seen in home-grown YouTube vids for their advertising campaign.
Tell me, did you take special classes in totally missing the point?
...DRM, walled gardens and other crap.
This will curtail fair use (want to lend a song to a friend? You can't, you evil pirate!)
Thus people will crack the various measures and many will turn to piracy to avoid the restrictions.
Audio tape did not kill music.
Video tape did not kill movies.
The Internet will not kill anything either. Expect old business models churning out prefrab crap.
Stop passing these stupid laws.
...to start running my own mailserver then. Been meaning to do it for a while anyway.
" This has been ongoing since the invention of "home taping". "
Yes, and home taping killed the music industry in the day, leading to the street being awash with starving musicians and record exces.
The MegaUpload people were rolling out MegaBox which would have given artists a 90% cut.
Then they got shutdown. Coincidence? https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq
I do not for one second think that MegaUpload were swell people I'd want to chug a beer with, but whatever their ills does not mean the MAFIAA are swell people either or even right. These are the very same morons who tried to get home taping outlawed FFS!
They are also the people who claim that Harry Potter lost $165million. Does that make it seem like they are playing fair?
They simply cannot innovate and rather than let a free market decide which companies succeed or fail, the MAFIAA and have laws enacted to maintain the status quo. Our freedoms are being reduced and monetised for the bottom line. That cannot be right in any sane world.
There is a tension between the demands of culture and the wishes of the creator. We used to solve this by copyright. This gave the creator *a limited time* to make some money, after which culture got control and could do what it wanted. This is why Bach, Shakespeare et al are still so popular. Culture has keep them alive even in death.
Today we have mega-coproates making increasing land-grabs, restricting access and declaring any failure on their part to meet demand as theft. It isn't. They are simply going up against something much bigger than themselves and they must lose.
The balance is shifting too far. Corporate demand should not dictate law, only the will of the people. And if the people decide that some movie/artist/whatever is not worth millions....well that's just tough.
I regularly infringe on copyright and various laws on by-passing security measures. So does just about everyone reading this. For example: have you even ripped a CD to a HDD or MP3 player? That's am offence in the UK. When just about everyone has to break a law just to make use of the stuff they have bought then the law is wrong. The answer is not to make the law bigger, worse and global.
Take you corporate shilling and shove it. Maybe try to grow a pair and post under your usual moniker too.
Another pernicious and uncalled for piece of legislation that will soon be singed into law by the EU. I'll give them credit for one this, they've made no pretence about this being democratic with their closed meetings and lack of public scrutiny.
When the government turns against the people, what are the people meant to do?
Oh, I see, bend over over and take it. Eh, @AC at 20:48.
Just ask Clifford Stoll, it's quite depressing really.
McKinnon did the equivalent of walking into a house with an unlocked door, saying "Hello? Any aliens here?" and then leaving.
What he did was wrong but the response is disproportionate. If he could do it, so could you, I or someone else with actual malicious intent.
I did not avoid the argument, I simply do not like the use of the work "pirate" or "piracy" for infringement. In the same way that I do not like the use of the word "hack" or "hacker" for the breaching of security (that'd be "crack" or "cracker").
I think you'll find piracy tend to occur at sea and generally involve physical violence, murder, rape, kidnap and/or the removal/destruction of goods.
There is no comparison between that an copyright infringement. None. It is disgusting moral relativism to equate the atrocities of true piracy with someone making unlicensed copies of a CD/DVD.
"Any site knowingly carrying copyrighted materiel should be accountable to the law of the land and be legally obliged to make efforts to police itself."
I think you'll find that all sites carry copyrighted material and so they should, it's their material. The law is not universal, some states allow more fair-use/transformative work than others.
"There are surely enough genuine FOS issues around the world to keep the hackers occupied."
And the destruction of cultural heritage is just one. Would you like Bach, Shakespeare et al to still be under copyright? That's the future we are creating. Corporate greed is perverting copyright, patents and trademarks into doing things that they were never intended to for.
The infringing material exists because the people hosting it are providing the service the legitimate owners should be providing, but don't because they are not prepared to change their business models. Sure, if they did provide the service infringing material would still exist, but that's not new but I would be prepared to say that the level of infringement would be much lower.
Case in point: I record something on my PVR, can I watch it on my PC? *NO*! Why? DRM and a lack of connectivity. Crap like that is what drives people to infringing sites. I don't want to make a copy of the stuff, I just want to watch it where I happen to be sat and not be restricted by some total ass-hat of a lawyer.
I could (if I was allowed to connect my own device to the cable) build a HTPC and stream/do what I want (even to mobile) without any need of their services and DRM crap. And once I am out of this contract I'll probably switch to Freesat for just such a purpose. Their tight grip on their media is costing them customers. It's their fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. Will they change? No, they'll just offer more bribes for more laws.
FFS we are talking about people who crow about a movie making billions and yet claim innocence when their accounts show it made a loss (e.g. Harry Potter). Both can't be right, one has to be a lie if not a fraud.
Morally bankrupt and a cancer to culture. Those are the people you are defending.
It'd be great - just a shame that none are available. There are WalledGarden TVs and PartiallyImplementedTVs, but no actual SmartTVs.
In fact, what I'd rather have is a thick-as-a-brick TV-sized monitor (maybe with speakers) to which I can fit the device of my choosing. That way I don't have to endure the artificial restrictions put in place my the OEM. With XBMC now running on the Raspberry Pi, why would I need anything else?
Define some open standards so that the various tools and departments can interconnect and various modules be re-used.
Whoops! Not allowed to do that!
I think I've used it about 4 times. Why? Well, I don't want G+ knowing even more about me.
Diaspora is interesting as well, maybe I'll set-up by on status.net instance to boot.
Am I one of the few who views donations to political parties/politicians as anything other than legalised bribery?
Why the hell the BBC simply doesn't let non-UK residents pay a "licence fee" to watch beats the heck out of me.
Oh yes....artificial barriers to free trade.
I have cable, I get ComedyCentral.
Can I use the ComeyCentral catch-up service? Can I cock.
There is one place, on Internet. Stop it already with the false barriers to trade.
Get a very large sack. It will have to be big.
Put all the Israelis in said sad.
Add all the Palestinians to same.
Proceed to beat sack with an iron bar.
You have no idea who you will be hitting, but this conflict has carried on for so long and with so many atrocities on both sides, I guarantee you that you will always hit the right person.
In the public cloud (e.g. DropBox, UbuntuOne etc) it would be cretinous in the extreme to no encrypt personal/sensitive data.
In corporate systems, one must trust that the procedures are in place and (as Ru rightly points out) all accesses logged.
Apple have pulled a blinder by getting their adapter accepted as a standard. Hopefully the EU will stick the boot in at some point (like they have with mobiles and chargers).
Heck, maybe we should just declare the Apple port as the official standard and thus unpatentable and allowed to be freely used without license?
After all, isn't competition good for the consumer?
I have run Win8 DevPrev. It is probably one of the most vile things I have ever had to suffer. GnomeShell annoyed me but I could get things done, Unity was just terrible (I hear it's better now, not tried it of late) but Win8...of dear god. So many clicks to do *anything*.
Real work does not get done on a Metro app and I do not like having to go through that bull-crap swooshy change thing just to get a neutered desktop.
Seriously, it's dreadful.
And at some point I am going to have to write software for the bloody thing.
In that case I'd wait about 6 months after the Win8 tablets ship, by then UEFI should have been cracked and you can then install a proper OS on to it.
"MS legal department continues to go from strength to strength. "
They are gouging money from Android over untested patent threats. You may recall that B&N describes them as "trivial", has found lots of prior art and is fighting back. Good.
Maybe if B&N win MS will be forced into operating within a free market and facing some competition. If they do, it's use (the consumer) who will benefit.
"What part of the word 'most' is causing problems here?"
Most of Google's money comes from ad revenue (if not all), so the amount they raise from ads placed beside links of infringing material is going to be pretty substantial. Perhaps not in relative terms, but certainly in absolute and possible on a par with (if not greater than) Megaupload. Have you asked yourself why Google opposed SOPA? Do you think it was really about freedom?
"You seriously believe that the answers are 'effectively the same'?"
Pretty much. Just because Google is big is no reason that they should avoid the law (even though I do not agree with said law). Actually, the best thing that could happen is someone going after Google in exactly the same way, then the law might get changed. But no, they would much rather chase down teenagers and get toadying governments to kowtow to them.
As I said at the start, I do not agree with depriving the artists/creators of income and I think they do deserve a wage (as determined by a free market, which might not be as much as they think they are worth). But the fact remains that the majors have not got their shit together and that is why the infringing services exist on the scale they do.
It is these services that are proving the people what they want. Ready access to content with no bullshit. And you know what, some creators do rather well by following such a model. Most of the infringing could be stopped almost overnight if the majors started playing fair (time an again surveys have shown that the biggest infringers are also the biggest legit customers, they are simply trying to by-pass the artificial barriers; e.g. region-lock).
There will always be some, such is life.
Attacking our on freedoms is NOT the answer to anything.
"For example, they don't go out of their way to do it, nor do they make most of their money from doing it."
Wrong, they do make money from it. Ad revenue.
They are not pirates AFAIK, no one has been pillaged, held hostage, raped or murdered.
As worst they are copyright license infringers. Or, rather, the people doing the uploads are.
If there was any infringement of copyright then that is a civil matter, it's not a reason for the doors to be kicked in and people arrested. That's doubleplus ungood.
The world has moved on, but rather than change the MPAA et al are trying to use new, draconian laws to enforce the status quo and ensure our future culture is controlled by corporations.
This will never work, all it will do is inconvenience the honest and force them into the arms of the infringers (who tend to offer a better service).
Why hasn't Google, Yahoo! or anyone else been shut-down for linking to infringing material? Yet a UK citizen is being extradited for what is, at worst, a civil offence?
Why weren't Sony execs jailed for the rootkit fiasco?
Why hasn't the RIAA been punished for torrenting infringing material?
The questions go on.
It is right that creators, distributors etc get a fair wage (as determined by a free market)
It is not right to restrict free trade or attack my freedoms simply to protect an outmoded revenue stream.
It is not right to hold our culture to ransom.
It is not right that elected representatives act against the wishes and best interests of the electorate.
25% is not good enough.
50% is not good enough.
75% is barely acceptable.
They want short-term gains and they want them NOW dammit!
This is why we have the financial crisis, massive under investment in infrastructure, a lack of action on environmental damage, child labour and any number of other ills. Profit NOW and screw the long-term consequences.
It must be opt-in and only ever, opt-in. End of discussion.
In other news: BigYin Advert Validation Service
I will check your ads for impact, clarity and message delivery. A fee of £1 will be charged per ad and payable on every ad viewed.
If you do not wish to use this service, you may opt-out by contacting me. The display of an ad on my computer screen is presumed to be consent to my terms of service.