CPRM? Customer Punishment and Restriction Mechanism?
3071 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
A few weeks ago I wanted to watch "Dark Knight". The DVD had been sitting on the shelf for quite a while. I don't have a DVD player in the lounge, I normally rip the DVD to a server and then watch it over the network (which lets me view it in the lounge, office, bedroom, garden etc). Could I get the movie on to the server? Only with a lot of frustration.
It would have been easier to torrent the movie or go for an illegal download.
So this thing I had given good money to purchase and done my bit to support the industry was actively trying to make my life difficult. I don't condone infringement, but sometimes...it's just easier even when you have paid for the blasted thing!
You are a content creator, you are not who the RIAA are here to protect. In fact, they would probably go after you as your free approach denies some of their members the chance to charge.
The RIAA are here to protect large movie studios (who deny actors, writers etc a fair share of profits through false accounting), not to defend content creators.
Oh yeah. And it's bot piracy, it's the uploader committing a breach of license. It doesn't even constitute stealing, which is why it was always considered a civil and not criminal offence.
Piracy involves rape, kidnapping and murder; license infringement, not so much.
Do not allow the likes of the RIAA to further attack your freedom by allowing them to control your language.
I want to pay, but artificial barriers to free trade prevent me from doing so.
I do without, but it costs the sellers and they wonder why sales are dropping. The Internet has no borders (yet) and they need to recognise that. Or maybe that's why we see so many news laws and plans trying to control people's freedoms.
....MS is complaining about the abuse of standards-essential patents? The same people who infested the world with OOXML? The same people who threaten OEMs over mysterious Linux patents? The same people who sponsor MP3, h264 etc? (Yes, MS are on the committee). The same people who routinely attack companies for using FAT (a de facto standard)?
They have the gall to whinge about patents? Really?
It's cute they don't want software patents rescinded when anyone with half a brain knows that they (and business process patents) need to be killed with fire.
It dies (or is currently expected to) next year. It's no longer sold. That is so close to "dead" as makes no odds.
Just because idiots still usr IE6 does not make it any less dead either.
Comparing XP (developed in secret and near EOL) to the Linux kernel 3.8 (developed in public and still living) is not comparing like with like.
GNU/Linux is developed in the open, so it will look like they have many bugs as one can see them all. Some bug won't even be a GNU or Linux issue, they'll be integration issues for a particular distro. Also, many of these bugs will be duplicates as various distros have a bug reported to them (a new ticket) which then gets filed with upstream (might be a new ticket, might join an existing one). This is before we get into the severity of said bugs. The projects are co-operative units, not closed and secretive monoliths like Apple and MS.
MS is cagey about what bugs they have and their publicly known list is probably a subset of the true picture.
I would have expected Apple to be the same if not even more anti-open, but as you cite no sources I guess we will just have to take what you say with a very large pinch of salt.
As for anti-virus - all PCs should run anti-virus, if only to protect Windows from itself.
People also forget the kick-backs.
OEM cost of Windows? Let's say that's your 20€.
Payments from bloatware? 30€?
Hence Windows units can be 10€ cheaper than F/OSS ones (and that's before we get into economies of scale).
I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.
Personally, due to the lack of competition in the market place, I'd like to see more OEMs offer "OS free" options. Maybe they would be cheaper, maybe the same dunno. One boon it would have is making user that their UEFI and SecureBoot was correctly implements, eh Samsung and Lenovo?
I can pick up a Core 17 with 16GB, nVidia GPU and a 240GB SSD for £1,050-ish. Why do I want the XPS at £1,500-ish? It won't be built any better (we are talking Dell here, not Lenovo or other decent brand) and I can still run GNU/Linux on the cheaper one.
Also, why do I want to support a company like Dell who have screwed over GNU/Linux so many times?
No more software patents.
All current software patents null-and-void.
No business process patents.
All current business process patents null-and-void.
If a patent is required to implement a standard, (e.g. OOXML) said patent is null-and-void (or transferred to some public defence organisation).
Android isn't "Linux" if one actually means "GNU/Linux", and that's what most people do mean when referring to desktop OSs like Ubuntu etc. Maemo was/is a full GNU/Linux I believe.
Android is (or almost is) "Linux" in terms of it's kernel. Not being a l33t uber-hacker, I'm a bit fuzzy on how closely the Android and Linux kernels actually are.
Wasn't that some kind of XML thing? And wasn't it a software patent (spit) they infringed?
As for the anti-Googlers - we already exist. I do what I can to avoid the Demon of Chocolate Mountain. Same as I try to avoid the Beast of Redmond and the Curse of Cupertino.
(And I made a very, very bad choice of phone)
Source Code != Symphony.
They both have the creative aspects, but the former is more of a "tool" to "do a thing" and that thing often boils down to basic math, or the choice between a couple of possible paths. It also can directly affect your privacy and security. It is manifestly not a symphony. Or even the sheet music for said symphony.
Source Code != Novel
For almost the same reasons as above. One is a work of art, the other is a tool (no matter how well crafted) to do a job. End of. About the only place we can enter into a grey area is where the source is laid out as a poem, or in a visually pleasing structure. But that's really just formatting - it doesn't usually affect what the code does.
I rather doubt Google had to "steal". It's not like they are technically inept, this is the company that dropped Windows and made their own GNU/Linux spin. Are Google as pure as the driven snow? No, I just don't see enough here to make me think they stole anything. They made the API (give or take) compatible with JavaME, everything else after that was almost inevitable.
What Oracle is pissed off about is that is dropped the ball. JavaME was the pre-eminent platform for mobile computing and was treated like the bastard child. Oracle ignored it, Google made a look-a-like and now Oracle is kicking itself.
To be honest the best way to resolve this would be to place the executives from both companies in a large sack and invite members of the public to beat said sack with a stick ($5 for 5 hits). No matter who you hit, you will always hit the right person.
Nope - all I have ever seen or heard of is Google Play. (Not that is seems to offer much in the way of certainty).
It's certainly the only one that is installed, and I don't see any obvious way of adding other repositories or whatever.
And it wasn't me who intimated piracy.
The only impediment to my rooting is a legal one. That and the fact it's brand new...
And as others have pointed out, there might be some cause for the vendor to see your personal details - however I assumed that Google's payment service would hold that in escrow until required. I don't see why an app vendor needs you home address, email or anything else really. They have your Google account and probably some kind of receipt/transaction ticket, that should be enough for dispute resolution.
e.g. Territory (no need for GPS, the mobile operator's location is enough), gender, etc. (all taken from your Google account). Might be of use to some.
But personally identifiable information? Getting sent without my permission?
Is that a breach of the Data Protection Act? Or EU laws on privacy?
I spent an age installing DuckDuckGo and replacing Google wherever I could when I got my first Android phone. It pisses me off that maps etc keeps activating and send back tracking information - there seems to be no way to stop it. If I could root this new phone, I would.
Google Play is a waste of space too - there's no guarantees on security or safety and what information they do give on permissions is useless. "Angry Birds" needs to be able find out who I'm calling. WTF? Why? No details given - there is no reason whatsoever for an app like "Angry Birds" to have any idea what number I am calling (or which one is calling me). It also want my location? Why? Once again, it has no need to know this.
Is any of this under my control, can I override any of the apps demands for information it does not need? No.
Android is a clusterfuck for user privacy. I just didn't realise how bad it was until I got one. Once the contract is up, I'm going back to a basic feature phone - one that I don't have to charge every single sodding day.
...used by Apple, Google, Nintendo et al. Deliberately under supply, then loads of clueless rags will run stories like "ZOMG! Surface Pro sold out!"
And I'm not surprised no one wanted the 64GB version. How much room would be left after Win8 has been vomited into it? 2 bytes?
At least the Surface Pro can have a proper OS installed on it.
"If you don't like the way a project is going, you either suck it up and live with it"
Indeed - and I have been very guilty of mouthing off...until someone raised my conciousness. Maybe I am now mouthing off the other way. Dunno. But I see far, far too many people who complain about F/OSS and have never once spoken to the project concerned. It's as if they expect the team to magically know what the problem is. It simply never occurs to them that there is an option beyond moaning.
And often when one does contact the project they may have some very good reasons why they won't/can't do it. Or (embarrassingly) they point at an option and ask one what, exactly, does one think that does?
There's quite a few bugs that drive me totally batshit (KDE menus has one, for example). I've added to the bug and I'm willing to test. It actually looks like it might be an easy fix, but I'm not familiar with the code base and as I am unwilling to put a bounty on the fixing; I have made my choice and now have no right to complain about it.
If someone said to me "I raised bug 123 and the response from the devs was 'Go and play with yourself. Denied'" then they have every right to complain. Loudly. For those devs are dicks.
"Cinnamon, for example, is a wonder for communication with the developers."
Cinnamon? They don't have wobbly windows! I DEMAND....Ok, ok, deep breath. :-) Yes, they are much more open than (say) Gnome or Canonical. I'm playing DE pong at the moment, trying to decide which one I like.
"When someone says it's not actually fit for *their* purpose, the response is a hyper-defensive "Go and write it yourself!""
Cost and moral obligation. If a thing is free, not forced upon you and you decide to take it anyway; the developer of that thing has zero moral obligation to do anything about your problems. If you've paid even 50p for it, there's a contract but that doesn't really excuse some of the hysterical demands one sees. If you've paid £5,000 for it....please, flap around. You have good reason to. (Obviously I'm ignoring critical/dangerous issues like safety, destroying data etc. as one has an societal obligation to not harm others)
Ok, gentle question. Have you told the project what you want? Logged a change request, filed a bug, got on their IRC, mailing list, whatever?
"I find this attitude extremely off-putting, and it's an attitude that you've demonstrated."
What's off-putting about pointing out that you can effect the change you want? If you are happy to let others put the changes in/decide the features, like choosing not to vote/protest/stand, you have abdicated all responsibility and have no right to complain. Sorry it that upsets you, but it's the truth.
Even with paid-for software, if you don't feedback to the OEM you won't get the things you want. They are not mind readers either. And they may still not choose to do what you want, then you are screwed. At least with F/OSS you can say "Sod that" and fork, if you have the chops to do so (and I realise that some people may not).
"You did say both of these, and they were your first responses."
They were part of a longer list and the reason they appeared first was they are the most immediate way to get the desired result. What is your alternative to either of those options?
"in the case of writing documentation, for instance, or testing current features - utterly useless so far as adding new features goes."
Not necessarily, as it releases the people who are currently doing to do other things.
Whenever I see "F/OSS X does not do Y" it reminds of the reviews for the 50p/free apps in the apps stores "This doesn't do Z. It's total shit! FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!" Which is utterly beyond the pale. It's a 50p/free app, get a sodding grip.
"Yes, you're saying DIY, or you're saying pay up."
"DIY", I took that to mean "you have to write the code yourself" which is manifestly not the case.
"Pay up" Seeing as the alternative is paid-for software, you have to pay up anyway! And I see nothing wrong with paying for F/OSS (be that money, time, other resources, whatever; i.e. get involved, it's your project too). Clearly one can't do everything, and that's where you make your cost/benefit choices.
I really don't get what your problem is. F/OSS software is there for you to take at zero-cost and when it's pointed out that it's down to you to get the things you want implemented, you go into a complete tizz.
If F/OSS does not do what you need, you don't want to get involved and some paid paid software does what you need at a price you can stomach....there's your decision.
" "Or pay a nominal sum of money to obtain commercial software that already has these features, along with support?"
£600 / license is a nominal sum?"
Be fair, £600 is a nominal sum relatively speaking. Let's make up some numbers. CMYK for GIMP, we've been told that's a hard job. How hard? One man year (including testing etc). How much is that? £60,000?
Only one person wants it. Cost to them? £60,000. That buys them a lot of licenses.
But wait. 10 people want it. Now the cost is £6,000 each. See where this is going?
Now yes, there will be other opportunity costs etc involved and one may still reach the decision that £600 at the pay-for vendor is the better option (especially if it's available right now). That's all fine and dandy, good on you, get the tool you need.
" "if you want it then go and write it yourself" (which you made in this thread) "
Poor summary, I said "It's your project too". If people want to abdicate all responsibility for things to someone else, there's already a model for that. They're free to lobby the vendor for new features too, then pay for the upgrade.
"give us money and we might consider it"
You don't have to give the project the money, do you? It may (or may not) take money. Depends what it is.
"but enough do that it's a major turn-off - and perpetuating the attitude helps absolutely nothing."
I'm not saying DIY, you're choosing to read that as my view and then argue against that. I am saying, get involved.
It's your project too.
"F/OSS expecting everyone to contribute back is the problem. Not everyone can or has the means."
Of course everyone has the means. It's not just code and massive test server y'know.
"The cost of a product that has already implemented the required feature and is not trying to harang me for money for something that should be in their product if they want me to use it. Which they do want me/ as many as possible to use or it would fail. "
Err...it does harang you. It's called "the price". If a piece of pay-for software does what you need, go buy it.
"it pays money and licenses for what it needs now. Not for future needs."
My comment was poorly written, I apologise. What I meant was the cash currently being spent on license fees and support contracts; some of that could be used to fund the development of their chose F/OSS tool. I fully expect them to still have a support contract, hopefully with an organisation feeding back into F/OSS (probably to make support easier...)
"but if a business needs a process now and it exists, why pay for someone to implement it maybe in the future. Somewhen."
I did not say they should. If another tool does what they need, go use that tool. What they should not do it select a tool that doesn't do what they want, moan about it and not lift one finger to fix the problem they have caused themselves.
Further more, many places do not have vanilla installs of (say) MS Office because they do not provide all the features. They go out and buy add-ons, or pay someone to write those add-ons. How is that any different to buying add-ons for F/OSS software, or paying someone to add to the F/OSS code base?
"If they want to beat the propriety software they need to put the features in."
Who said they wanted to "beat the proprietary software"? The most they want to do is scratch their own itch and fix their own problems. There will be some vendor somewhere who does want to beat proprietary software, I'll grant you that. But that isn't the project's problem and said vendor would almost certainly be involved in the project at some level, seeing to it that what they need gets done.
"Also note not everyone can contribute"
Everyone can contribute. Don't place limits. Even a decent bug report (or the steps to hit a problem) helps.
"Of the options you mentioned, only writing it myself or hiring someone to write it will actually guarantee the specific functionality gets created. That's not going to be free to do."
So what? Whoever said F/OSS has to also be zero cost software?
"If i need 4 copies immediately, the only sensible approach is to go out and buy something that already does it."
I have no problem with that. You could also form a cadre of like minded individuals and get the thing done.
Did he know that is is hard/impossible to add? He won't find out unless he asks.
Does he require CMYK support? Seems he does and as GIMP can't/won't provide it; then GIMP is the wrong tool for the job.
I'm not RMS, I don't have a probably with people buying proprietary software. What I have a problem with is people who get software (or anything) for no cost, bitch about it and demand it do something else for no cost.
@Paul 135 - This already exists, it's called "getting involved". There is nothing to stop you, right now, getting together with a few others and hiring a coder/graphic artist/whatever and having whatever it is that annoys you sorted.
The slight problem with a straight money donation to bug fixes/features, it kinda creates the incentive for devs to not fix things until there's enough donations.
"Yes, we are all programmers"
No we are not. Why does everyone get so obsessed with code? Where did I say that you and only you must write the code and the only thing you are allowed to do is write the code?
You want to know what a massive help to a F/OSS project is? Reading the docs and checking for spelling mistakes, confusing structure, translating etc. Basic stuff that requires no knowledge of code.
Wanting everything for free and providing no contribution back is what harms F/OSS.
"If it does not have the features needed everyone says "write it yourself." "
If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I offered many option. Here's a question:
1) How much did LibreOffice cost you?
2) How much did the support contract cost you?
3) How much is that feature worth to you?
"A small business cannot do this"
Yes it can. See the money it pays for licenses and support contracts....guess where some of that could go?
"Open source needs to address this"
If does. It's call "People who want features in free/open source help get those features put in."
"And the only thing I really need Photoshop for is CMYK image support."
Then write the CMYK support, or hire someone to write it, or sponsor the project, or write the specs, or help with the testing, or the docs, or....
That is, of course, assuming you have the time/resources/money.
LibreOffice and GIMP do do "real work" and one will find them excellent products. The toolchains are slightly different, but this is not a problem if you are only using one and either product is capable of matching their proprietary versions.
What people often forget when they say "You should use X instead of Y" is that "close enough" in file handling is simply not good enough in many cases. The fact that GIMP can read a Photoshop filse is of no use to a profession unless 100% fidelity is guaranteed. Gradients rendered the exact same way, layer and filters applied the exact same way etc.
But one stated out using GIMP, you can apply the same argument to Photoshop; it must render your GIMP files the exact same way otherwise Photoshop is useless to you.
So it really is more of a question on which one you start out with - for that choice is your lock-in and that is why you should choose freedom (if possible).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018