Topic: Vista copy protection is defended  (Read 10263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GE-Raven

  • Lord God Emperor for Life of the Taldren SETI Group
  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2621
  • Gender: Male
  • The cause of AND solution to life's problems
    • Raven's Nest
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2007, 04:01:29 pm »

What utter crap, I have over a 100 CD's, I don't want to be forced to recopy all of them just to sadate the paranoia of the RIAA.  Then again I don't want to have to buy an new HD monitor because some idiot found a way to copy movies from it.  Like I said Microsoft need a far more middle ground to both the RIAA/MPAA and more importantly the customers then what is offered in Vista.  Fair-use right are being trampled here in a big way, and our time and hard earned money may be thrown away because of it.


Then don't buy it.. I for one wouldn't mind re-digitizing them with the new tools, as it would allow for a uniform and higher quality digital form of the song.  Of course that is the music lover in me... 

You can be pissed at the RIAA if you like, however all the measures they are asking for are only there because they represent a HUGE number of music labels.  In other words RIAA is really just a conglomerate of Record Lables... so if you are pissed... you shouldn't have bought those cds at all... cause that is where RIAA's money to cause you such discomfort comes from.

But again if you don't want to digitize your music, you don't have too... I am sure there will be some lovely hacked software (Spyware included of course) that will play all your precious mp3s and not care whether or not you actually own them.    Having not seen vista... maybe it is possible to retroactively add a license to the files by just popping in the cd. 

You can bitch about it all you want... but the fact remains that the only reason DRM is being used is because millions of asshats decided they "deserved" free music that other people had to pay for.  Same for movies... etc...  I really fail to understand why people are mad at the people who are just trying to make sure they don't get ripped off!

Again... I am sure that you personally are blameless and have never stolen music in your life.  However the VAST majority of people have and continue to steal music... (I used to do it too... until I realized what I was really doing.)  It is this fact that has forced the hands of those whose livelyhood depends on the sale of music.

GE-Raven

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2007, 05:02:17 pm »

Then don't buy it.. I for one wouldn't mind re-digitizing them with the new tools, as it would allow for a uniform and higher quality digital form of the song.  Of course that is the music lover in me... 

You can be pissed at the RIAA if you like, however all the measures they are asking for are only there because they represent a HUGE number of music labels.  In other words RIAA is really just a conglomerate of Record Lables... so if you are pissed... you shouldn't have bought those cds at all... cause that is where RIAA's money to cause you such discomfort comes from.

But again if you don't want to digitize your music, you don't have too... I am sure there will be some lovely hacked software (Spyware included of course) that will play all your precious mp3s and not care whether or not you actually own them.    Having not seen vista... maybe it is possible to retroactively add a license to the files by just popping in the cd. 

You can bitch about it all you want... but the fact remains that the only reason DRM is being used is because millions of asshats decided they "deserved" free music that other people had to pay for.  Same for movies... etc...  I really fail to understand why people are mad at the people who are just trying to make sure they don't get ripped off!

Again... I am sure that you personally are blameless and have never stolen music in your life.  However the VAST majority of people have and continue to steal music... (I used to do it too... until I realized what I was really doing.)  It is this fact that has forced the hands of those whose livelyhood depends on the sale of music.

GE-Raven



Your not going to get higher quality MP3 music from a CD because of the limitations of the medium (the CD).  Nothing is going to be improved in all those "re-digitized MP3" files you are being forced to make just to satisfy Vista.  You are going to have to wait and buy a new HD-DVD if it comes out.  Otherwise you are paying for a OS that will make you jump through hoops for nothing as I'm just as sure that you have bought all of your CD's as well.  And you are in fact correct I have never copied a CD that I do not own, nor have I ever downloaded any music illegally or legally.  I always buy the CD that way I know I'm covered.

So for me it is in insult treating me like a thief when I have played by the RIAA/MPAA's rules even as they try to violate our rights to fair-use.  If you like being treated like a thief than that is your prerogative, I personally am insulted and have every right to be.  The minute my iRiver MP3 player is deemed a risk by the RIAA and I have to spend $300 to buy a new one I'm going to be pissed.  Or worse I have to spend another $400~600 on a new video card just because the MPAA doesn't feel good about HD movies on being played on my computer with the video card I already own for Vista.  As of right now no proof needs to be shown for the RIAA/MPAA to do this sort of thing, at least now as far as what has been released by the media.

Now sure I could hide myself in a cave and never watch another movie or listen to any popular music ever again.  But as a person I don't feel like I should have to be punished because I am not breaking the law.  Yet again, all I'm saying is that Microsoft should have put forth something more far more middle ground to both the customers and the RIAA/MPAA.  What we see in Vista does not favor the customers at all in regards to fair-use.

Offline Commander La'ra

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2435
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2007, 06:24:36 pm »
Um.. not if the only "activity" being checked is license status.  It ain't sending info to microsoft that says "bob johnson likes porn!"  It would send info to the porn movie license holder (owner of the copyrighted material) and make sure that the license attached is valid.  All can be done without a single bit of personal information (other than the mac address of your network card, and IP address... but that is given to every server you touch on the web, so pretty hard to get pissy about that...)

Not hard to get pissy about it at all considering that if I own the computer, whatever's on it belongs to me and no one without a badge and a warrant should have the right to see what's there.
"Dialogue from a play, Hamlet to Horatio: 'There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' Dialogue from a play written long before men took to the sky. There are more things in heaven and earth, and in the sky, than perhaps can be dreamt of. And somewhere in between heaven, the sky, the earth, lies the Twilight Zone."
                                                                 ---------Rod Serling, The Last Flight

Offline DookeyKing

  • Lord of all things smelly
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2007, 07:05:37 pm »
Firstly,  I have no intention of "upgrading" to Vista just to pad Microsoft's bottom line.  There's nothing wrong with XP.

Secondly, regarding DRM, Microsoft and the entertainment industry have no more right to check my PC for illegal software or media than they do to walk in my house and look at my CD/DVD library.  The fact that the US government allows these aggressively invasive organizations to continuously  violate our constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom from unreasonable search just shows how much money the entertainment industry spends in Washington.  Regardless of how legal your software/entertainment collection is, I don't see how any consumer can actually defend this kind of anti-consumer behavior.

I am highly confident that my next OS upgrade will be a Linux flavor.

Scott

Offline GE-Raven

  • Lord God Emperor for Life of the Taldren SETI Group
  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2621
  • Gender: Male
  • The cause of AND solution to life's problems
    • Raven's Nest
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2007, 09:35:42 am »


Your not going to get higher quality MP3 music from a CD because of the limitations of the medium (the CD).  Nothing is going to be improved in all those "re-digitized MP3" files you are being forced to make just to satisfy Vista.  You are going to have to wait and buy a new HD-DVD if it comes out.  Otherwise you are paying for a OS that will make you jump through hoops for nothing as I'm just as sure that you have bought all of your CD's as well.  And you are in fact correct I have never copied a CD that I do not own, nor have I ever downloaded any music illegally or legally.  I always buy the CD that way I know I'm covered.

So for me it is in insult treating me like a thief when I have played by the RIAA/MPAA's rules even as they try to violate our rights to fair-use.  If you like being treated like a thief than that is your prerogative, I personally am insulted and have every right to be.  The minute my iRiver MP3 player is deemed a risk by the RIAA and I have to spend $300 to buy a new one I'm going to be pissed.  Or worse I have to spend another $400~600 on a new video card just because the MPAA doesn't feel good about HD movies on being played on my computer with the video card I already own for Vista.  As of right now no proof needs to be shown for the RIAA/MPAA to do this sort of thing, at least now as far as what has been released by the media.

Now sure I could hide myself in a cave and never watch another movie or listen to any popular music ever again.  But as a person I don't feel like I should have to be punished because I am not breaking the law.  Yet again, all I'm saying is that Microsoft should have put forth something more far more middle ground to both the customers and the RIAA/MPAA.  What we see in Vista does not favor the customers at all in regards to fair-use.



Heh chose the wrong dance partner here.  The "limitations" of the medium of a CD are so far beyond the "portable" digitized files as to be nearly indistinguishable.  CD Audio is in PCM format Pulsed Code Modulation.  There is zero compression in this format.. meaning that if your 8 bit digital signal is 11100110 the signal sent to the decoder is XXXOOXXO (electrical pulses).  IN the case of CD audio it is in 16 bit 44.1 kHz stereo.  Meaning 4,410 samples are taken every second for wave changes.  This takes up alot of space.  Every minute of audio takes a little over 10 MB of space so a 650 MB CD can hold approximately 60 minutes of music.   Now in contrast Mp3 is compressed meaning these "samples" are approximated over the playing time.  The "standard" compression rates for Mp3 audio is normally discussed in Kbit (128 is pretty standard for most music ripping software).  This is how many bits are sampled over the time frame.  For voice and music 128 is not bad as far as loss of data.  However Mp3 is actually quite old.  Widowns Music Audio is actually a superior quality in sound fidelity to size ratio.  My Mp3 Player at home has 95% of the tracks in 256 Kbit mp3 except for the few tracks I have purchased online and not had a choice in sound quality.  However for choral and especially orchestral music I easily notice the difference between the realtively high quality 256 Kbit an PCM audio of the CD.  With a high end sound system almost every one would notice the difference.

The fact is the compression is obtained by "killing" the information outside "normal" hearing AND speaking range.  Now obviously there is very little loss from not taking data outside human auditory ability (interestingly enough though sounds that are "sub" human hearing do effect overtones in the rest of the sound so it does indeed "matter")  The big loss is the fact that music has a lot of sound that is outside normal speaking range.  This is why 96 Kbit Mp3 get tinny sounding especially for high-hat and cymbals.

For a good guide to a lot of the "standard" codecs:
http://www.teamcombooks.com/mp3handbook/12.htm

But the new windows media player in vista supports many of the new codecs which are designed to maximize fidelity while not breaking the bank when it comes to disk space.  When you get to video... it gets FAR more complicated.  However there is NO compressed audio that will ever (by definition) hold a candle to uncompressed PCM digital audia.  The CD is KING when it comes to sound reproduction with only the old Reel to Reel tape in analog recording as a challenger.

So yeah... I certainly will get "better" recordings as time goes on.  BTW in my opinion Microsoft is not limiting your "fair use"  you are.  You still have all the options available to you... if you wish to use Microsoft's tools to help you utilize your media then you are indeed choosing to accept their limitations on the use of THEIR tools. 

If you want to buy a gun without a safety on it... you are welcome to do so.  You are also free to complain to the gun company for including a safety.  However don't fault the company for choosing to include a safety on the gun if it behooves them to have one.  The reason microsoft is capitulating to the music and video industry is that they are indeed worried that lawsuits could be filed if THEIR tools are used to violate someone else's copyright.  Given the computing history of users who have indeed used it to that effect, I do not blame them.

GE-Raven


 

Offline GE-Raven

  • Lord God Emperor for Life of the Taldren SETI Group
  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2621
  • Gender: Male
  • The cause of AND solution to life's problems
    • Raven's Nest
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2007, 09:49:00 am »

Secondly, regarding DRM, Microsoft and the entertainment industry have no more right to check my PC for illegal software or media than they do to walk in my house and look at my CD/DVD library.  The fact that the US government allows these aggressively invasive organizations to continuously  violate our constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom from unreasonable search just shows how much money the entertainment industry spends in Washington.  Regardless of how legal your software/entertainment collection is, I don't see how any consumer can actually defend this kind of anti-consumer behavior.


Again you are failing to see the difference and reality of the software in question.  It is not checking for illegal software UNLESS YOU RUN the software.  It is merely checking that you indeed have a license for software you are running.  In other words they aren't coming into your home to check your cabinet... they are checking that you actually paid for it at the register, so to speak.

Lets clear a few things up that I think people really fail to understand about ownership.  You own a book... that is true... you OWN the book.  You do not however own the words within that book.  You see the words, the thoughts, the communication within that book are the property of the those that wrote, published, and sold the book.  Furthermore it will continue to be that person's property for about 75 years after their death.  In honorable societies of days gone past it was held as theirs forever.  Indeed we still credit Charles Dickens for A Christmas Carol despite the fact no one affiliated with him or his family see a dime of money from it.  So until literature enters the public domain... it is owned by the one who wrote it.  The same rules were chosen to apply to Audio and Visual mediums.  You can buy a painting but the image is not yours.  You can buy a copy of the score of West Side Story, but you don't own the music on the page.  You can buy a Victrola record of Louis Armstrong at Preservation Hall in New Orleans.  But you do not own the tones that emanate from it.

This is where the Fair use comes into play.  It is a MESS to decipher in todays age.  Once upon a time you could lend a book... but it was way to laborious for someone to physically copy down the words to give to a friend, so there was little problem.  One book read by one person at a time.  Now I won't get into fair use right now, because frankly that is a huge mess with complicated rules that grow by the day.  But the fact remains that ALL pop music, All Hollywood blockbusters, All E-books, are not "owned" by the person that bought them.  What you have purchased is the right to enjoy those works in various ways.  The rights you have are many... but indeed the rights of the creator of them are much greater.  For it is their livelihood that depends on people respecting those rights.  In today's age it is extraordinarily easy to deprive the creator of the art their rights... this is where the problem lies.  The lack of respect for the rights of the artist.

GE-Raven

Offline Grim

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1004
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2007, 11:04:32 am »
Well at the end of the day the businesses and consumers will decide whether or not they decide to upgrade to Vista. Whilst you raise some valid points Raven, there are people that are looking at Vista from different specific points of view. You raise the valid and important point about artists, music corporations etc trying to protect their intellectual property rights, but I believe that they are going about it the completely wrong way. They should be finding other alternatives to stop the distribution of illegal music either by shutting down these networks, or alternatively encouraging people to legally download music, as seen in example with iTunes.

I find the fact that Vista can scan your PC for files that it may deem as being unlicensed intrusive, and ultimately a violation of your personal liberty. I can understand to an extent (but only just) Microsoft scanning for some of their own products, making sure your Windows copy when activated for the first time is valid, or checking its own other software products such as Office. But I don’t agree with allowing them the right to scan or validate for stuff that quite frankly is none of their business or is not part of Microsoft’s software property.

Another gripe I have with this is what if the detection/license validation procedures for some software is incorrect. There are bound to be situations where Vista can’t accurately validate a license, what happens if the product/software is in fact legal but Vista makes an error?

It’s a fact that Software/Game publishers are becoming more intrusive, look at the example recently of Electronic Arts. Their Battlefield 2142 comes with added spyware, which gathers data on you and will display in game ads on the map based on your “surfing habits”.

I will be sticking with XP despite the gripes I have had with it in the past such as asking me to re-activate when I have carried out hardware upgrades, which I find ridiculous.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2007, 04:28:45 pm by Grim »

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2007, 04:25:00 pm »

Heh chose the wrong dance partner here.


Not really, I have no problem stomping on peoples toes.  CD are in fact sent to the speakers at 16 bit 44.1 kHz stereo but on on two channels one for each speaker in a stereo system.  Even a DVD can do better than that by 96,000 samples per second and 24 bits per sample.  More importantly DVD can record six channels instead of two.  So yes there are limitations of the CD medium.  So the CD is not "KING when it comes to sound reproduction".


Most people may copy songs to MP3 at 128 bit but my MP3 program (Roxio) is set at highest quality 280K so I'm not losing much if any.  WMA is a lossy audio compression format as well, it also suffers from quality problems from low bit rate conversions like MP3 does.  It is certainly not superior to MP3, in fact here is a good site that compares to two formats:  http://ekei.com/audio/

Quotes from the site:  "MP3 is still the top quality standard.  Their emphasis not mine. "Not only does the 64kbps WMA lack in violin detail, but even at 128kbps (which Microsoft touts as "audiophile") suffers from overbrightness".

Another quote from the same site:  "To all my tests, we have been completely unable to separate the original from the compressed".  Which I find interesting from the statement you made:  "However for choral and especially orchestral music I easily notice the difference between the relatively high quality 256 Kbit an PCM audio of the CD".  How is that??!?  Is your ears that vastly superior to everyone else in the world??!?  Or maybe you haven't actually put your ears to the test like the people at MaximumPC did.  I can't find the actual article at MaximumPC but I did find this site that describes what the people at MaximumPC did.  You can read it here:  http://www.latinpulsemusic.com/articles/show/3

Yes Microsoft is limiting our fair use that have been established in the courts.  They are using their market share to cram these over restrictive policies in Vista down our throats much the same way Microsoft tried to force MS Explorer upon us at the expense of Netscape.  Just because you refuse to recognize those rights much like a rabid anti-gun nut refuses to recognize the 2nd amendment doesn't mean those rights don't exist.


Quote
The reason microsoft is capitulating to the music and video industry is that they are indeed worried that lawsuits could be filed if THEIR tools are used to violate someone else's copyright.


That is flat out wrong, if that was the case Microsoft would already have been sued for allowing any and all commercial DVD's that people use now to be copied on Microsoft's WinXP platform.  The reason why Microsoft put all of these over restrictave policies in place is because Microsoft wants the PC in everyone's living room instead of bedrooms and/or den in the form of Media PC.  Microsoft can't achieve that without the ability to play HD-DVD's.  MPAA won't allow Microsoft's Vista to play HD-DVD without those restrictive DRM's in place.




+1 for Grim for that excellent post.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2007, 12:07:10 pm »

So when Vista decides that some of my non Microsoft software is dangerous it can delete it whether I want to or not?  So my OpenOffice can be deleted with no recourse on my part?


Yes that is exactly what it means  ::) ::) ::)  Come on people!  Quit fear mongering... you know damn well that this would NEVER happen because it is would be the most stupid thing MS could possibly do.  In my experience I have not seen windows defender, in its current incarnation, remove ANYTHING that was of any use to anyone but the makers of spyware looking to rip you off!


So your saying that Microsoft would never do things to make competitors software fail in some way (as they did with DR-DOS on developers versions of Windows) or even by accident like Symantec recently did do?  You may remember another case long ago where PKZip was flagged as a virus?  A new version of PKZip had to be released because the anti virus company didn't respond quickly enough.

I'm sure they'll check to make sure that they don't foul up their own software but how can I trust them not to either accidentally or purposefully do so to competitors software?

Quote
Screw Sun, Crossplatform will never work.  Lets move on and steal the Java language.


That is their philosophy in a nut shell and why I don't trust them not to use their power to delete competing software.
 
Quote
When it does delete that software I'm not even allowed to work around it?

What will a business do when the file deleted by a Windows Defender update is a mission critical file.  Part of your Oracle database or your payroll system or accounts recievablefor example? 

No sale.  I don't see how any serious business can risk putting their software and data on Vista with these "features" and license terms.

A couple of things to remember.  The DR-DOS detection routines used to crash Windows betas in a way that persuaded developers that DR-DOS was incompatible with Windows.  The internal Microsoft memo stating that if needed to compete with Palm they would change Windows to make it less compatible with the Palm software.  Simply put given their history I don't trust Microsoft not to set Windows Defender to delete competing software components with the solution given to customers "Buy our software instead".


Because any serious business knows that it is very much part of MS interests to make sure none of this happens.  Believe it or not companies that wish to make money still need to have happy consumers.  Now the fact of life is that the business PC is a HUGE chunk of profit for MS... therefore it only makes sense to me that satisfying the Network Admin's dreams is a big part of their equation. 

It really is humorous... but I have yet to see one "dire" prediction about Microsoft's abuse of power over the last 10 years come to fruition.  I have never seen a legal activity, a business function, or piece of data, intentionally hindered by an MS product. 

Now I have seen them make several attempts to corner markets, and "incorporate" the "new hot thing" into their OS.  However if I were them, I believe I would do the same thing. 

GE-Raven


How is it in Microsofts best interest to not delete competitors software when they can claim its an accident and blame the other companies programming practices?  When installing Windows it will detect prior versions and you can set to dual boot if you wish but it just destroyes existing multiboot abilities into non Microsoft Operating systems.  How is it any different to Microsoft to blow away an installed OS (and applications) compared to just deleting a single portion of a (competing) application?

Every day a competitors software doesn't run is a day that the customer may become a Microsoft customer instead.

"DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"  Why did Microsoft never deny this was their DOS development slogan when it was all through the computer media?  It always seemd a new version of DOS broke Lotus.  Coincidence?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2007, 12:38:29 pm »
Again you are failing to see the difference and reality of the software in question.  It is not checking for illegal software UNLESS YOU RUN the software.  It is merely checking that you indeed have a license for software you are running.  In other words they aren't coming into your home to check your cabinet... they are checking that you actually paid for it at the register, so to speak.

The problem is that its not checking at the register, which is of course in the store at which I bought it.  Microsofts systems now intrude into my home and check over and over whether I bought it.  A totally different situation indeed.  Just how often do the other manufacturers of (non software)products that you legitimately bought and paid for enter your home and stop you to search for proper ownership?  Check often enough and of course you will eventually get a false result. 

They also now claim the right to be the sole judge of whether or not I paid for it and may be allowed to use it.  The right to unilaterally revoke the ownership of that copy without recourse for any or no reason.

Lets clear a few things up that I think people really fail to understand about ownership.  You own a book... that is true... you OWN the book.  You do not however own the words within that book. 

I own that book.  I may sell it.  I may loan it.  I may give it away.  I may burn it or sacrifice it to pagan gods.  I may analyze it.  I may write up a review and sell the review.   The only restriction is copying it and distributing those copies to others. 

Software EULAs (in spite of the store reciepts I recieve) try to claim I don't in fact own software the same way.  Who gave software companies this ability to write laws by corporate act of will? 

You see the words, the thoughts, the communication within that book are the property of the those that wrote, published, and sold the book.  Furthermore it will continue to be that person's property for about 75 years after their death. 

Quote
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note that limited Times section.  Can you name any work that has come out of copyright in the U.S. by that copyright expiring in your lifetime?  How about your fathers?   Maybe your grandfathers.   

The continual retroactive copyright extensions given by the U.S. government effectively establishes a perpetual copyright and violates the constitution of the U.S..

In honorable societies of days gone past it was held as theirs forever.  Indeed we still credit Charles Dickens for A Christmas Carol despite the fact no one affiliated with him or his family see a dime of money from it.  So until literature enters the public domain... it is owned by the one who wrote it.  The same rules were chosen to apply to Audio and Visual mediums.  You can buy a painting but the image is not yours.  You can buy a copy of the score of West Side Story, but you don't own the music on the page.  You can buy a Victrola record of Louis Armstrong at Preservation Hall in New Orleans.  But you do not own the tones that emanate from it.

What society ever had perpetual copyright?  The only ones I can think of were where printers were given rights to specifics works perpetually, not to all works.  The King James bible I believe was given a perpetual copyright held by the crown.

This is where the Fair use comes into play.  It is a MESS to decipher in todays age.  Once upon a time you could lend a book... but it was way to laborious for someone to physically copy down the words to give to a friend, so there was little problem.  One book read by one person at a time.  Now I won't get into fair use right now, because frankly that is a huge mess with complicated rules that grow by the day.  But the fact remains that ALL pop music, All Hollywood blockbusters, All E-books, are not "owned" by the person that bought them.  What you have purchased is the right to enjoy those works in various ways.  The rights you have are many... but indeed the rights of the creator of them are much greater.  For it is their livelihood that depends on people respecting those rights.  In today's age it is extraordinarily easy to deprive the creator of the art their rights... this is where the problem lies.  The lack of respect for the rights of the artist.

GE-Raven

The copy is owned by the purchaser and in spite of media producers attempts to write new laws on the fly the purchaser does in deed own that copy.  What they don't own is the right to distribute copies of it.

How is it a mess?  Just allow me the right to do with those electronic media as I could with prior media plus what is needed to actually use them. 

A computer program for example needs to be able to be copied to my HD for proper use and into memory as well.  Those acts are required for the use of the media.  Tapes and DVDs need to be transmitted to a display device for example.  None of these should be inhibited or cause the media developers to review my ownership of that copy any more than moving to another city causes book publishers to review my ownership of my private library.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2007, 12:44:51 pm »
Um.. not if the only "activity" being checked is license status.  It ain't sending info to microsoft that says "bob johnson likes porn!"  It would send info to the porn movie license holder (owner of the copyrighted material) and make sure that the license attached is valid. 

GE-Raven


How many times has Microsoft had the "bug" where you click no to sending registration information and the software sends it anyhow?   Fixed in patches of course, which get applied after the data has been sent.

An example of Microsoft collecting data.  They of course claim that the data is not retained but they have produced falsified evidence to the U.S. court system so just how much can you trust that word?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2007, 10:06:38 pm »
Vista has problems with iTunes

Quote
Some currently known compatibility issues with iTunes 7.0.2 and earlier versions include:

    * iTunes Store purchases may not play when upgrading to Windows Vista from Windows 2000 or XP.
    * iPod models with the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may be unable to update or restore iPod software, and make changes to iPod settings.
    * iPod models configured to Auto Sync and have the "Enable Disk Use" option turned off may require being ejected and reconnected to resync.
    * Ejecting an iPod from the Windows System Tray using the "Safely Remove Hardware" feature may corrupt your iPod. To always safely eject an iPod, choose Eject iPod from the Controls menu within iTunes.
    * Cover Flow animation may be slower than expected.
    * Contacts and calendars will not sync with iPod.


Is the new Microsoft mantra "Windows isn't done until the iPod doesn't run"?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Tus-XC

  • Capt
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2007, 01:25:36 am »
1) its says (in regards to playing) only when upgrading (when has there ever been a perfect upgrade for windows... its much better to just do a clean install)
2) it says may not play, which means there are far more variables then you would like me to believe (ie user oriented variables, variables in which MS and Apple have no control over)
3) it doesn't say that it has crippled Itunes or ipod, but says there are compatability issues.  sounds to me that apple didn't try to make sure their software would work on the new vista.
Rob

"Elige Sortem Tuam"

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2007, 06:32:34 am »
1) its says (in regards to playing) only when upgrading (when has there ever been a perfect upgrade for windows... its much better to just do a clean install)
2) it says may not play, which means there are far more variables then you would like me to believe (ie user oriented variables, variables in which MS and Apple have no control over)
3) it doesn't say that it has crippled Itunes or ipod, but says there are compatability issues.  sounds to me that apple didn't try to make sure their software would work on the new vista.

Perhaps so.  But pro Microsoft people said that every time upgrades broke Lotus.  Microsofts internal memos stated that they should consider breaking compatiblity with the Palm OS to push Windows CE (written right after they swore in court they didn't do that sort of thing).  The famous "knife the baby" quote from Microsoft comes over trying to kill off Apples media player software.  So is this just another knife and another baby?

What single app out there dominates most strongly over the Microsoft version and would aid Microsofts "competition" if it just doesn't work right for a while?  The iPod is trouncing Zune and Microsoft wants that market.  So the question is was it an accident or is it just another case of Microsoft using their monopoly control of Windows to hurt competitors?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline jualdeaux

  • The Quiet One
  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2758
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2007, 09:09:50 am »
Nem. Can you upgrade a Linux install, any of them, and be sure that every program you have installed on there previously will work with the new OS version?
Only in America .....do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2007, 09:51:00 am »
Nem. Can you upgrade a Linux install, any of them, and be sure that every program you have installed on there previously will work with the new OS version?


Can you give one example where the Linux kernel, GCC, X11, Gnome or KDE were deliberately changed to break compatibility with a given program? 

Can you give one example where a Microsoft owned program was broken by a Windows or DOS upgrade without the fix being available before the OS was released?

Microsoft has been proven (Windows - DR-DOS and MS-DOS - Stacker)  to have done that and has at least discussed doing it on other occasions (Window - Palm OS).  Microsoft gave Novell the run around on taking part in the Windows 95 beta (info came from the current Comes vs Microsoft trial in Iowa).  Amont other things they wanted the names of every programmer and every site they sent Novells own beta software to.  Nice to be able to use your monopoly clout to get your competitors lists of major customers and software developers so you can target them for special "attention".  Would you give your competitor the list of your primary customers and developers when they explicitly state that they won't give you the equivalent?  Abusive, illegal monopoly behaviour as judged by multiple courts.

The development system for Linux distributions is different.  The core elements are all available for anyone whether yourself or a major corporation (even Microsoft) to take part in or just test through all phases of development.  The major distributions (such as Redhat and SuSE) do their beta work equally publically.  No one is excluded from being able to fully test their software before it goes gold.  Has a Linux distribution broken compatiblity with old software?  Yes (Redhat using a cutting edge GCC variant with some "issues"), was it publically known before the release?  Also yes.  Was there information available to allow fixes to be generated by the software creators before the final release of the distribution?  Yes again. 

There is the difference, why it is done and how publically its done.  Linux has done so in the open for technical reasons, Microsoft does it in the dark to destroy or damage competitors.

Did Apple have access to each of the many versions of Vista for testing or just a generic beta?  I never heard that the many variations had public betas so I doubt it.  So even if their software worked with the generic beta they couldn't know about the multiple final versions.

You see it isn't that Vista breaks some compatibility with the past it is that once again Microsoft is doing so to a major competitor.  Software that Microsoft itself should have been testing to make sure it worked.  In fact there is every reason to believe that Microsoft employees did test it and should have reported it as a bug.  ([spoiler]source link "About 80 percent of Microsoft employees who have a portable music player have an iPod," said one source, a high-level manager who asked to remain anonymous. "It's pretty staggering."  Done as a spoiler as it is evidence not part of the argument itself.[/spoiler])

What Microsoft has illegally done in the past has happened again.  Could it be an accident?  Yes.  Is it an accident that they should have prevented?  Also yes.  Because of their past behaviour they look guilty, just like any other serial criminal where a crime may have occurred and evidence links to them.  I doubt their innocence because so many times before it has been proven the blood is on their hands.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Tus-XC

  • Capt
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2007, 01:38:50 pm »
Perhaps so.  But pro Microsoft people said that every time upgrades broke Lotus.  Microsofts internal memos stated that they should consider breaking compatiblity with the Palm OS to push Windows CE (written right after they swore in court they didn't do that sort of thing).  The famous "knife the baby" quote from Microsoft comes over trying to kill off Apples media player software.  So is this just another knife and another baby?

What single app out there dominates most strongly over the Microsoft version and would aid Microsofts "competition" if it just doesn't work right for a while?  The iPod is trouncing Zune and Microsoft wants that market.  So the question is was it an accident or is it just another case of Microsoft using their monopoly control of Windows to hurt competitors?

Possibly, but i'm not going to read into a compatability issue without knowing all the pertanet facts.  Memos and e-mails that take place inside a company are not facts enough to prove that they actually acted upon it, especially since i know from my beta exp that there are more proggies out there that just dont' work w/ vista
Rob

"Elige Sortem Tuam"

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2007, 04:29:56 pm »
Memos and e-mails that take place inside a company are not facts enough to prove that they actually acted upon it,


So how about their prior convictions?  Is that enough to place them on your suspects list when major 3rd party apps that Microsofts competes directly with fail to run on a new OS?

Just remember you can always get the Linux Genuine Advantage™ if your feel the need.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Tus-XC

  • Capt
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • Gender: Male
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2007, 08:01:24 pm »
i thought it was innocent till proven guilty in this country nem.  They haven't been charged w/ anything concerning this incident to date have they?  is anyone looking to press charges?  Has there been a court case on this incident concerning vista in which they lost?  sorry thos past conviction don't bare any light onto their motives, if any.  They are only brought forward by those who have a grudge that are looking for something as proof that they are still doing said actions.
Rob

"Elige Sortem Tuam"

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12485
Re: Vista copy protection is defended
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2007, 08:25:52 pm »
i thought it was innocent till proven guilty in this country nem.  They haven't been charged w/ anything concerning this incident to date have they?  is anyone looking to press charges?  Has there been a court case on this incident concerning vista in which they lost?  sorry thos past conviction don't bare any light onto their motives, if any.  They are only brought forward by those who have a grudge that are looking for something as proof that they are still doing said actions.


I'm judging them by their history.  If they are guilty now as I suspect it will be years before that evidence comes out even if a trial were begun today.  So we only have the past plus their current visible actions to judge by.

Consider that they were ordered as part of their punishment for the actions they were convicted of to publish certain programming APIs.  They were given 5 years.  Those years are past and they haven't complied.  They are now talking of how the 2 year extension they were given may not be enough.  In that time they have written a whole new OS version but can't figure out how to document the APIs that are used in it?  That to me shows that they are not complying with the law and are still continuing their pattern of crimes.  They are also overdue in providing similar material in the EU (the reason for the big fines in the last year).   More of that continuing criminal pattern.

In the last year they decided to make a specification of their new XML format for Office 2007, they have managed to write ~7,000 pages and get it through the ECMA standards group and are now trying to get it fast tracked through ISO.  Yet in over 5 years they couldn't document their APIs?   To me that smacks of defying the court system and they should be harshly punished for willfully disobeying the courts.

As to innocent until proven guilty it is a good principle.   When a career burglar moves next door and acts as if he is casing your house then you have break ins who is the first person investigated?  He may still be legally innocent but he is still the first investigated because of his past.   Microsoft has that past and has never shown public proof of their reforming.  In fact here is a link from Oct 2005 where they tried their illegal exclusive license deal again and had to back off when caught.  Seems to me that it illustrates that all of this shows that they haven't changed since their convictions.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."