Vista a Threat to Internet Freedom? 479
BBC columnist Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on. "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away. Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit. [...] governments and corporations around the world are making a concerted effort to dismantle the open internet and replace it with a regulated and regulable one that will allow them to impose an 'architecture of control.'"
Informal Poll (Score:5, Funny)
o my job
o my life
o my sanify
o my wallet
o my security
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Informal Poll (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Informal Poll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Informal Poll (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a Mac user, you might be better off looking at Linux if DRM-free-ness is what you want. Apple is as big a pusher of DRM as Microsoft. That said, it tends to be less in-your-face about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only is Apple's DRM less intrusive but Apple, sadly, doesn't have Microsoft's financial clout to withstand an assault from the RIAA and the like.
Apple could have made a stand, but it would have hurt them too much financially to make that stand. So they designed a DRM scheme that is at least somewhat palatable. Meanwhile, Microsoft has enough money and enough power over the computer industry to at the very least keep the DRM pushers at bay, if not break them entirely.
Microsoft does have it's own re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I lasted a few hours and then wiped the disk and put XP Pro on it. The last straw was when I tried to put Daemon Tools on it and it wouldn't boot any more.
From my few hours' experience, I can tell you that Vista is not
Re:Informal Poll (Score:5, Funny)
As long as there is something good... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a matter of how long it takes them to A. Figure out that it is good and B. to figure out how they want to fuck it up.
Probably all true. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you'll have as much freedom as you can handle. Well, sort of.
Re:Probably all true. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Probably all true. (Score:4, Insightful)
or are they - (Score:4, Funny)
- A Breathe of Fresh Air? A Site for Sore Eyes? Breeches of Security?
- Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth?
- Like putting on a Ferrari?
- Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle?
Re:Probably all true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful, I for one, in my experience testing Vista, was not inspired. I was so not inspired, in fact, that I tried to go back to windows XP only to find OEMs no longer include working system reinstall disks, and that essentially if I want to get my system back to the way it was I have to pay the Gateway mafia their payola or download an illegal version of Windows and put my legal key in. My response is that I'm sick of paying for dinner and being served cowshit, while they give the bums eating out of the garbage my meal. If I was running pirated Windows to begin with, I would've never had a problem. My problem, essentially, is attempting to buy a Windows PC with Windows installed and think I actually have the ability to run the OS and recover it should I have any errors or difficulties.
I'm going to make sure what I buy from now on is Linux compatible. I've had enough of this "you don't really own anything" culture. DRM will lose out once customers finally realize how much they are being screwed by the big houses. And it won't take that long for that to happen, because as the DRM gets more complicated, the amount of technical difficulties with it will increase, and people will begin to wonder why HD-DVD doesn't work any better than DVD and won't work on anything, while their DVDs will. Resulting in nobody buying into it.
Computing has been free for far too long and there are too many clever hackers involved for this crap to go down now. We've become too smart, and now we'll just move around instead. I don't give a shit if I can't watch HD-DVDs. I won't. I'd rather have freedom than a hi-def version of Speed II: Bladder Control.
Re:Probably all true. (Score:4, Insightful)
And they'll keep on getting searched at airports, being scared of tshirts, believing whatever imaginary threats are shown on TV and so on. Just like they're supposed to.
I just wish I was wrong...
Re:Legal Key invalid... (Score:5, Informative)
With DRM what you expect and what you get may not be the same. I recall seeing some discussion of the Legal XP key becomming invalidated in the Vista upgrade process.
A quick Google search brings up gems like "Vista will invalidate your XP key (so you won't be able to set up a dual-boot option nor will you be able to use that version of XP on another machine). Not only that, but if you ever uninstall Vista, you won't be able to fall back on your copy of XP anymore. Nice"
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/upgrade-to-vi
Single vendor copy protected software may not provide you the privilages you expected to recieve when you bought it.
Any questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Vista will play unprotected media just as happily as protected.
The problem isn't really Vista, but the DRM philosophy itself.
And like Linus Torvalds, Steve Ballmer & the gang don't really have anything against *implementing* DRM for giving their users the choice.
Enough with this "Vista will doom our media landscape" FUD. That matter is largely in the hands of the media companies, not Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to agree that there are valid scenarios for Trusted Computing but disempowering the user is not among them. This is an imposition of Vista and not a consequence of buying a DVD.
Re:Probably all true. (Score:5, Interesting)
How long before some lobbyist convinces the government to make it mandatory to use an *AA approved protocol/operating system which can be used to ensure that their IP 'rights' aren't being violated?? In which case, MS (or, one or two other *AA licensees) will become the gatekeeper(s) of all data on the internet?
When they outlaw unencumbered internet protocols and operating systems, only criminals will be running them.
Doffs tinfoil hat
While I don't think that the above is (imminently) likely, it certainly seems to be the direction regulation is moving to. If you can't convince the *AAs/government/terrorist police that you're above board, your activities are to be shut down until such time ad you can prove that you conform to their expectations.
And, since the *AA's seem to be able to push through any law they can afford (which then gets pushed down the throats of the rest of the world), I'm afraid the paranoid scenario seems more and more probable.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Probably all true. (Score:5, Informative)
Get to the Root of the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Vista a threat to our freedom? Because it's laden with DRM. Why is it laden with DRM? Because they feel pressure to use DRM so users can't spread media. Why do they feel this pressure? Because huge organizations full of lawyers threaten people everyday with lawsuits, they don't want to be a target of those lawsuits.
Now, I know that Vista will soon be the number one used operating system. Will it be Vista's fault that users are giving up their rights? Yes. Will it be Microsoft's fault for giving in to fears and not fighting for our rights? Yes, but no more so than the DRM that Apple puts on its iTMS. Will it be the RIAA/MPAA/other lawyer's faults for putting this fear into the corporate mentality of how to run a successful business? Most definitely.
Stop complaining about each piece of software that comes out with restricted rights attached to it and hit the root of the issue: legions of lawyers lobbying for unbelievable laws on copyrights and enough money to strong arm cases against any defendant.
The only part of this article worth pointing out (that I didn't really read) is that Microsoft is one of the few companies with the cash to fight back. But instead, they're selling the limitation of rights on their OS as a feature.
That's not a good analogy, nature is both beautiful and ugly. Natural trends are not always the best, for instance, what if I said that "the network tends towards liberal values just as a bull tends to rape any female cow next to him." Doesn't sound so enticing, does it? If you're going to use an analogy, please use one that sheds light or meaning on the situation. Your quote underneath your picture just sounds like you smoked enough dope to spew hippie peace love crap.
Re: (Score:2)
I would have used "eventually" instead. I don't think the spread of Vista is going to be half as speedy as MS's other OS releases. We should be glad they're so willing to fire off countless rounds at their own feet, it will make breaking the Redmond monoculture happen that much faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of software you probably just need to find a better business model (people to make money out of giving software away).
It is that logic that leads governments to subsidise un-competitive industries and companies.
Re:Get to the Root of the Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. Imagine your product is dirt. Dirt is readily available, no one is ready to pay for small amounts of innocuous dirt. However, if you provide convenient, small, enhanced packages of dirt you will have a market e.g., Miracle-Gro. Perhaps this isn't your preference, perhaps you would like to provide extremely large amounts of dirt to distributors who sell smaller increments of enhanced dirt. Like dump trucks of topsoil for subdivisions.
There are many business models for seemingly ubiquitous resources. The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt but they are unwilling to change their business model to compensate. Therefore they must sponsor insane laws to enforce broken models that have already failed and will fail again.
Re:Get to the Root of the Problem (Score:4, Funny)
The problem with the RIAA and MPAA is that they have a product that may become more common than dirt...
And almost as enjoyable to consume.
An EXCELLENT analogy!! (Score:4, Interesting)
You hit it right on the spot. That's one of the best analogies for digital copying there is. Because, what is it exactly that makes "enhanced dirt" different from any other kind of valueless dirt? Answer: the organic matter it contains. Once you get a small sample of this "enhanced dirt" you can make a culture of whatever is the living matter in it that makes it so special.
Living matter replicates itself endlessly, just like digital data. Give me one sample of a fungus or bacteria and I can make an indefinite number of copies at a very small incremental cost. And that's the reason why the corporation lobbyists have pushed for regulations that make living things patentable. There are plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc, that have existed for thousands or maybe millions of years, yet they are patentable by the first corporation that fills a claim. How's that for prior art???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're all about users rights, but what about my rights as a developer or music producer?
That's why we have laws. Do you feel that you have a right to make peoples' computers obey you (using DRM) instead of them? It is not your computer, and you have no right to force it to obey you. If someone infringes your work, take them to court. The court system is made up of hopefully intelligent people, or at least people more intelligent than any DRM system can ever be. People can make reasonable judgements that DRM systems cannot. DRM systems see everything in black or white, with no grey areas, suc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'll have to explain that one to me. I understand that you have an _opportunity_ to profit from your work, but a _right_? Get over yourself.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People need to grow up about this "Intellectual Property Rights" nonsense, which are neither property, nor rights.
Did you build your own compiler?
Did you build your own motherboard?
Did you go to school to learn Theory & Application? What about all those people who donated their time and effort _SHARING_ their knowledge of Algorithms? And you want to profit off their work then bitch over a few people that see copyright for what it really is -- an _artificial_ right. The ONLY reason
copyrights and photgraphy (Score:3, Interesting)
Saying you own the "right" to a specific order of notes, is as about stupid as a photographer trying to claim he owns the copyright on a photo. If I retake the photo with my own camera, in the same location, and same time of day, do I now _also_ have copyright?!
I agreed with your statement until I got to the end and read this, above. A photographer does own the rights to any and all photos s/he takes unless they shoot while working for hire or until they sale the rights. That does not mean they have th
Industry can't "die" as long as there's a market. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this doesn't mean that there isn't a market for entertainment. There is, has always been, and will always be, a vast market for entertainment of all forms. So it's idiotic to assume that no DRM means the death of the movie, music, or software industries. Those industries will continue, as long as a market for their products exists -- however, they will have to find new business models that don't rely on pretending that information is aspirin tablets, can can be turned out in factories and sold, over and over and over again.
The market for entertainment is probably quite inflated right now; I suspect that during this switch of business models, to something that's more sustainable and doesn't require draconian consumer restrictions, that the size of the movie industry, in particular, would contract dramatically. But that's the way of things -- a huge studio empire isn't required to produce a good film, and thus there's a lot of redundant overhead there, which needs to go. This change sucks if you make your living right now as a middleman in a movie studio, but it probably sucked being a buggy-whip manufacturer, too.
You cannot destroy the entirety of the entertainment industry, so long as there are people with free time and disposable income, who want to be entertained. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry as we know it today has grown fat and lazy; it has resisted change at every opportunity, even when such change has eventually benefited it (e.g. VCRs, online music sales). Either it will refuse to change, and go down with its failing business model, or it will stop fighting the inevitable, and rethink how entertainment is produced and sold. Either way, people will still be entertained.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For your assertion to be true, music and movies couldn't have been created pre-copyright. Since I'm pretty confident that people have been making all kinds of art without copyright, I'm not too worried. I'm gonna suspect "no software before copyright" is for a different reason... :)
Culture is a commodity (Score:5, Funny)
If you aren't willing to give your culture away to a big company, then buy back whatever little pieces of it they want to dole out, then you hate capitalism, the free market, and America. Probably Mom and apple pie, too.
Re:Culture is a commodity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright is an attempt to bridge the infinitely scarce with the infinitely plenty. If it didn't exist then some of the greatest writers would have had to keep day jobs in order to stay alive and thus could not have put nearly as much effort into their work. We wouldn't have most sci-fi films because the cost of doing them would be prohibitive. It goes on.
While I agree with the limited monopoly copyrights and patents afford to creators, I used to write and still photograph, to say nothing would be writte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read before responding with pseudo intellectual babble next time, k?
Thanks for your constructive criticism. The real problem is the problem addressed in the article, where technological and legal
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That documentary explains it all far better than anybody here and you owe it to yourself to view it before using the "groupthink" argument.
Re:Culture is a commodity (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I am going against the groupthink here and will be modded accordingly, but how are you "giving" the culture to the company that created a movie/song/whatever?
For the most part the studios and artists that create works do not retain the copyright for those works because it is the distribution channels that have been taken over by monopolists and cartels. To equate the person who owns the copyright with the creator of a work is misguided. Do you know how much an average musician makes from the copyright on their songs? Less than nothing. In exchange for making songs and transferring the copyright to a label, most musicians sign a contract that puts them in debt. It is the only way to get their music widely distributed. Most of them make money selling trademarked t-shirts, and doing live performances. If copyright disappeared tomorrow most musicians would probably make more money.
If you want to, you create the culture and give it away.
Yeah, and have basically no chance of reaching the mainstream audience.
The world does not exist to entertain you, I know that is hard to swallow, but it is true. If you don't like the MPAA or RIAA then go outside to do something, read one of the huge number of public domain books, actually talk to other human beings instead of being glued to the screen cursing the same MPAA who finances the movies you like.
Books are an interesting example. Do you know how many books make a profit after the first 3 years? Less than 1%. If my grandmother wrote a book 40 years ago and died 20 years ago, the chances are the copyright for that book would be owned by a publishing house who would intentionally bury it, so that the work could not be freely printed and it did not compete with current offerings. The vast majority of books, TV shows, and songs are intentionally being held by companies who do not offer them for sale, effectively erasing them from public. You mention public domain books, but most books written since the 70s will likely never, ever enter the public domain and of those that do, most will be DRM'd in some way so no usable copy may ever exist.
Some of those are probably the greatest works of literature of those decades, but were too progressive for their time and were tossed in a bin. What is copyright and why does it exist? My natural human right to free speech means that if you sing a song and I hear it, I have the right to sing that song too. Copyright is an artificial restriction on that right, designed to motivate the creation and archival of more works. If the works are no longer archived and no one can see or read them and they are not for sale so no additional revenue is motivating the author's to create, why are works still copyrighted? What is the justification for restricting my free speech?
Anyone who takes the time to see how many and what artistic works are vanishing, the last copies rotting away, becomes concerned about the issue. Our artistic heritage is being buried for about 1% increase in profit. We need reform and that reform should take DRM into account.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "and you make baby Jesus cry!".
HTH
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My Favorite Situationist Quote (Score:2)
But You Can't Totally Blame M$ For This..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But You Can't Totally Blame M$ For This..... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the contrary. Microsoft decided that they would implement the DRM because they believed it was necessary to get the media industry onboard.
Thing is, if neither Microsoft nor Apple had gone the DRM route, they would still get on board, because the alternative is to get NO money from people downloading with their media online. With or without DRM, getting online gives them a chance to make a profit, as opposed to not getting online, and having no chance.
If anything I am more angry at Microsoft for knowingly and intentionally helping the MPAA and RIAA strengthen their grip.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps they wouldn't. Who knows, with those wild and crazy guys at the MPAA and RIAA. They never throw their weight around in the legal system.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's the other way around, at least for HD content, if you want to play ICT HD content at anything above 540p you need all the DRM paths that MS implemented. This rule applies to both Blueray and HD-DVD, and it applies to computers and set top players equally.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ICT is not yet turned on (supposedly) and in any case if both computer vendors told them to blow their DRM out their ass, then either A) both formats would fail because no one could play them properly on their computers or B) they would neve
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary. Apple is (so far) only using DRM at the Application level. Vista, however, actively utilizes TCPA... at the OS level.
Bring it on. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Internet Protocol is about bits (Score:4, Insightful)
The question now is, what sort of bits do they want to sell you? It won't work to sell the same bits to two different people any more, because the freedom of the Internet is still just the same as it always was.
What's changing is the kind of bits they sell, and the software that they use to interpret those bits. That's an attempt to make money of the effort that they put into creating those bits.
Maybe it'll work. More likely not; somebody will always find a way to get something resembling the original form of the bits, and then people won't want the highly individualized version. I just haven't seen a good alternative yet. (And if you want to talk about live performances, reply only if you've ever tried to make a living booking venues for a band. I have. Start with an anecdote about how badly you were treated so I know you're not BSing me)
But if you want to say, "Hey, remember the good old days when I got all my music for free, and only suckers actually paid for it?", well, whatever. More power to you. Just don't expect the guys who make bits for a living to reminisce along with you.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_sockets [wikipedia.org]
Re:The Internet Protocol is about bits (Score:5, Insightful)
You use to then be able to use those bits freely. Now you can't courtesy of DRM. The freedom to copy useless bits is not what the net is about.
But if you want to say, "Hey, remember the good old days when I got all my music for free, and only suckers actually paid for it?", well, whatever. More power to you. Just don't expect the guys who make bits for a living to reminisce along with you.
I like the guys who make the original bits (artists). I'd like to give them money so they can keep going. On the other hand the guys that change those bits so I can't play them, try to make me re-buy everything and refuse to properly compensate the artists can go fuck themselves.
If you're going to talk like a clueless angst ridden pre-teen, expect to be talked down to like one.
Re: (Score:2)
The net is about connecting computers. That's it. It wasn't invented so that you could make music videos out of the latest episode of Friends and the latest Backstreet Boys single.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you can. eMule works in Vista. BitTorrent works in Vista. WinAmp works in Vista. Nothing has changed unless you are buying content that is already protected. As much as I don't like DRM and wish it would go away this is NOT the big deal many are making it out to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they aren't able to release their own IP material because they don't have the proper authorization from the media cartels. Oh not to mention most artists don't make any real money of CDs sales as it is.
Seriously, DRM hurts the artists as much as it hurts the consumer because it hands the power of the distribution to the media cartels who want to extract as much money out of the consumers while trying to keep as much as
thats not all! (Score:2, Informative)
MySpace (Score:4, Funny)
Does this mean that MySpace won't be the eye sore that it is thanks to Vista?
Thanks Vista!
DRM? (Score:2)
Inevitable (Score:2)
If there's profit to be made, then such restrictions are inevitable. And if you're a stockholder (directly or through your 401(k) plan) of these companies, or of any of their downstream companies, you are implicitly counting on it.
If there's not room in the law for such restrictions, then room will be made via the
Yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, our freedoms weren't restricted with CDs because we owned a physical copy of them and could make cassette tape mixes for fair use fairly easy. (Remember them?)
Books could be easily xeroxed and you still owned a physical copy.
With DRM'd media you don't own the media nor can you fair use copy it without breaking the law.
The threat is really (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be defeatist, it is NOT a one-way street (Score:5, Insightful)
They were wrong, and their parent publications were generally too stupid (or embarrassed) to archive their words on the Internet, so I don't have links for you...
And as for AOL/Compuserve... well, they hardly matter now.
My point is, the companies that try to exert greater control by giving their customers less control, the companies who spend as much effort making their products worse as making them better, do not always win. In fact, they quite often lose. It is largely up to us.
Now, cable companies and telcos tend to be an exception, because they basically have government-backed monopolies and there are so few that they can collude with each other. Even they are vulnerable in the long run, just not to market forces.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh God.. Don't remind me. I was trying this weekend to write a college paper on the history of the internet. I eventually gave up and picked another topic because the myraid of things I remember that were interesting and not just technical simply aren't recorded or have been removed. Some of the things I remember myself (got my first email account
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure wth code names have to do with anything, but IE, with ActiveX and its deliberate focus on incompatibility, is a great example of what I'm talking about.
As far as MSN being an ISP-- that's not how I remember it. Wikipedia's history matches my
Summary = FUD, article = great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
seek inspiration from the creative works of others (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that what they call not paying what your favorite band is asking for their latest studio production these days? If the band just wants to inspire you, they can (and do) give it away. I'd like to be inspired with free subscriptions to the complete, hard work of the thousands of people that cause SciAm, the WSJ, the NYT, and others to exist, myself. Just for inspiration, mind you. No? Fascists! The MAN is controlling me!
If a filmaker wants you seek inspiration from her creative works, rather than pay for it as entertainment, she has all sorts of ways to make that work available without DRM, and without charging her audience. More likely, though, she hopes you will be inspired, but also that you'll actually pay what she's asking - so that she can eat, pay her production team, hire talent, invest in new projects, and inspire other creative people by doing things like giving them jobs with paychecks to work in the field, etc., rather than looking for a pirated copy of what she just spent three years and all of her investors' money making.
This notion that we're no longer in the good old days when a few nerdly saints had wide-reaching internet access and liberally swapped around material (read as, "physics white papers"), and that if we were all just sweet and nice, we could go back to those days... B.S.
You've got untold hundreds of millions of consumers (a microscopic fraction of which are inspiration-seeking creators) that don't see the 'net as The Glue Of Freedom, but as The Place Where I Don't Have To Pay For Things Cuz That's What My Friends Do And What Do You Mean Blank CDs Cost Money. Those that are looking to inspire and be inspired have all sorts of venues, and can and do swap their works with each other freely (AIB/S). Inspirers/ees aren't traveling in the same circles as the leeches.
Viacom telling YouTube to take down the stuff that Viacom produces and distributes isn't the same as The Man telling Professor Wonder-Visionary that he can't post video of himself standing in a bathtub reciting his Haiku for both of his fans/disciples. You can go to wonderful web sites like photo.net [photo.net] and see freely shared, posted, fantastic, inspiring work (complete with technical discussions!) that's there in exactly the spirit that the Beeb's guy says is going away. But you can't just go and run off with a copy of Annie Leibovitz's new collection of work because she's decided to earn money with it if the book is reviewed well enough to earn paying customers. If no one wants to pay what she's asking, then the book won't sell - but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect it to be therefore free if you just look hard enough for someone who's scanned it and put up on a web site someplace in the name of "internet freedom."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Music, films, software, games, are nothing more than ideas, and ideas can NOT be the property of one individual. They are to be shared by all mankind. To wrap ideas in DRM and charge money for them is an affront to humanity, itself!!
GIVE ME LIBERTY (TO ENJOY ANY AND ALL DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYMENT), OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!
When will it end? (Score:2, Insightful)
Like it, hate it, buy it or dont, but its a fucking piece of SOFTWARE!
Someone wake me when Vista morphs out of its CD case into Godzilla, and proceeds to beat the crap out of someone until they put it in their computer and reboot?
Hell, a few weeks ago, we were reminded that water can KILL!
When do we start clamoring for laws against Oxygen-Hydrogen combining, or at least regulations preventing stupid people from drinking water without taki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
The Way I See It... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to give you a few analogies. Back before the web was what it is today, there was a time when Usenet was where you went for "community" and information. Back then, you could be somewhat more trusting that the person on the other side of the wire was what they said they were and the information was valid. You were interacting with the "best of the best" in the various scientific fields. At that time, the internet was not what one would consider a financial success. But it was much more successful as a tool for self education and research. (Hell, I got a response from Stephen J. Hawking that I was allowed to use in a college paper at a state school in the U.S. How cool is that?)
So why were things so much better back then? There was a natural filter in place. A barrier to entry. You HAD to be more intelligent back then to get on the net. You had to be able to deal with your computer at a deeper level than just pointing and clicking. Or, you had to be a member of an organization that was either military, research or academic. There was a silent selection process going on that ensured that people would be of a certain level of intelligence to be able to join in. As soon as Netscape was released to the Masses and companies like AOL switched from their private proprietary networks to the internet, that filter started to dissolve.
Today, ANY idiot with enough cash or access to a computer at work can jump online and post anything he or she wants to. They can be as "authoritative" as they want. Why did this happen? Because the true point of the internet (free exchange of information, ideas, collaboration on culturally and globally beneficial non-profit projects) was lost.
Instead it became a business tool to be used by one tech company to try and beat another one to death with. It became a pitched battle to be fought to the financial death of your competitor. So, Joe Dumbass was allowed onto the internet to cultivate and share his collection of porn as well as try and "hook up" with "hot chix". Jane Dumbass was allowed to get online and post her mixed photo album of baby photos, various lovers and erotic photos to say, "This is me and I rule. I take your man. I love my baby's daddy". The businesses don't care as long as they get their monthly fee paid. Yea profit motive. Way to go there. Taking what could have been a great way to augment collevtive intellience and once again (as with radio and television) and slowly turning it into another brain sucking avenue for profits and consumerism.
There was even an early time on the web where a search in Altavista would give you decent results on various topics without providing many links to companies that sell related products. But today, no matter which search engine you use, various searches inevitably turn up a lot of dreck that is meant to convince you to BUY a solution to a problem instead of BUILD one. It's no wonder that I've resorted to using Wikipedia when I have questions about things as well as AUGMENTING the information with the subscription databases that my public library provides to it's members for free. At least following those routes, one can avoid the McNet for the most part.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll give you an example. I have a media center of my own design. I have a laptop that uses WiFi which has a DVD drive in it that doesn't get much use. In order to not clutter up my living room with a PC, I put the media center down in the basement and ran the DVI cable through the wall using a custom faceplate through which the widescreen monitor connects. Of course this means that the DVD drive is also in the basement. I CO
Che image in article (Score:4, Insightful)
So Mr. Author of the article. Are you saying Che would of resisted control of the internet? or Embraced the Cuban style lockdown that exists now (IN Cuba).
What exactly does the image mean in the context of the article?
Can someone explain to me what the problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)
All I see in this article is an opportunistic activist using the launch of Vista to reiterate a general disdain for corporate hegemony with a bunch of vague platitudes and appeals to emotion.
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No.
So, what's really behind this diatribe?
Re:Can someone explain to me what the problem is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that they're trying to establish the principle that you don't get to control your own hardware. That's the only way to get DRM to work. DRM can never function the way they want it to on a true general-purpose computer.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Look at what happened with decss. We're going to end up with a future in which Linux is seen as a crippled platform. Have you ever watched a video of any kind on a Linux box, using OSS? Congratulations, if you're a U.S. citizen, you were almost certainly using illegal software. All the usable video codecs are patent encumbered, and the mpegla licensing only allows 100,000 copies of a particular implementation to be produced before you have to start paying royalties.
Re: Vista DRM (Score:2, Interesting)
Free Speech Zones ... Free Software Zones next? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Free Speech Zones" exist. They are one of the new ways of dealing
with crazed thought criminals who band together to hurl abuse at
the state. On the more sober note they are fenced off areas usually
far away from the event people want to protest where they can shout
and chant what they want.
It only then follows that we have Free Software Zones on our computers
sandboxed environments that wont really have a whole lot of access to
hardware such as th
No kidding? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you had paid more attention in history class this woudnt be such a surprise.
When it gets too bad, people revolt, and we start the process all over again.
I think it's time people find a solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
First things you don't need a vista, music, movies, or anything else of that sort. This is important to understand before I proceed with this post because people have to understand music, movies, and the rest are elective choices, not rights that they are entitled to.
Second piracy is NOT an answer. I don't care how much you feel you're entitled to a movie or music. Stealing it instead of supporting that industry is theft, not "your right". I don't care what the RIAA or MPAA did to you, your mother, some random woman, or your dog. They own the rights to that music or movies. If you think that they shouldn't, inform your favorite singer, actor, director about alternatives. Don't support them, or what ever, but don't give them a reason to feel morally entitled to your money.
When you pirate anything you basically give the opposition a right to send you to jail, you have stolen the profits from them. You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. If you really wouldn't have bought the music, then don't download it. Why do we have DRM and lawsuits? Because people pirate movies and music and the RIAA feels a need to control this.
The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule. There's not much you can do if you want to hear a soundtrack to a foreign film, but again realize that if X company buys the rights to the soundtrack you should expect to buy it at a reasonable price. (what ever the current rate is for cds. Remember the idea here is not to screw the company, the idea is to get them to realize that their tactics are wrong).
Third, start boycotting. This is the most important thing, don't steal it, don't borrow it and don't return it. Don't listen to that new Britney Spears/Enimem/Weird al cd unless you have bought it through a process that you agree with. Find a way to get music you like with out DRM, buy it that way. But at the same time if you are buying music don't start giving music away to all your friends. If they come over feel free to play it for them or loan them the disc but don't rip a copy for them, don't go and post it on bittorrent. That just shows you're helping people steal from the company and doesn't correctly support the process.
The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. That's the ONLY way you're going to stop DRM and stop the tactics of the groups. Find better groups and bands or alternative software if you're so pissed about it. But stealing them and bitching about DRM loses it's effectiveness once you have stolen the media because they actually do have to protect their media or at least find a way that people have a way to control the rights to their own property. Remember, the RIAA might steal from the artist but downloading the music also means the artist isn't getting any money. (I don't care if the artist only gets 25 cents from the RIAA, downloading that music means that 25 cents isn't being given.)
Just don't buy it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the music/movie industry's control has been lost largely because of how the internet works and they're using all of their power to regain control. If in 1998-2000 the music industry realized that they didn't need to sell physical media anymore, and passed the savings onto their customers, there would be very little piracy and there would be no need for DRM; the same thing could be said about movies today.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
I was almost convinced until you said something about passing the savings on to the customer. Obviously you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!"
I admit that it is an old fashioned concept but it is not (entirely) dead
Consider Walmart, an entire empire was built because Walmart found a way to reduce costs and pass the savings onto the customer; had Walmart tried to reduce costs and increase their ROI on every product sold they would probably have never grown into what they are today.
Now I could be wrong but I believe that if music on iTunes (or any music store) was dramatically less expensive (say $0.25 per song) you would see a lot more money spent on music and few people would be willing to admit that they stole an album; at $4 per album I could see most parents buying their children a $20 iTunes card a month, and everyone would (possibly) download the entire album of an artist when they liked one song they heard. At $15-$20 per album the cost almost justifies the effort required to download the album for free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because the capitalists are not the first to impose on others freedoms, and just because they do it economically rather than pol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Profit is income that is not derived from work, but from investment of money. People who take profits take money that rightfully belongs to others who actually worked for it. There is a reason Jesus got angry at the money lenders in the temple. There is a reason that lending money for profit was considered a sin.
You've just described how our society has created exponentially more wealth than in the history of the world in a fraction of the time of that history. You've also described the process that has lifted more people out of poverty than any religion or govt work ever.
:)
Jesus was a cool guy, but that doesn't mean you have to believe everything he said or did was right. Well unless you worship the guy maybe.
No . Actually (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is ambition.
Re: (Score:2)
Check that out and get back to me. You will be a changed man.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)