Comment DRM is dead? Lets bury it! (Score 0) 154
Since even RIAA acknowledges that DRM is dead, there should be no objections to such a common sense measure, right?
Since even RIAA acknowledges that DRM is dead, there should be no objections to such a common sense measure, right?
The RTS is supported 3 years on the desktop,so if they make the next RTS 10.10, it will mean that the orgs that are running RTS will have just 6 months to upgrade to next RTS before the previous is EOLed. I know most people don't really care about that, but for large deployments, to force that kind of change schedule is not really nice.
DRM is a restriction but sadly its a reality that most publishers and authors would want it.
In principle, why wouldn't they want it? It increases their control over the work at the expense of the public, who is (mostly) ignorant they aren't buying the same thing when they buy a DRM infected work than when they buy something DRM-free. The only way to defeat DRM really is to educate people that something "bought" that uses DRM is not really bought, just rented at the whim of the publisher (and people will value it accordingly). "Selling" goods using DRM is really false advertising.
That's not quite true, pirates are much more likely to win than that. It's a matter of will, and if you get enough people cracking the protection schemes quickly enough at launch, DRM will eventually go away. DRM is about control and profit, if the schemes are broken fast enough there's definitely a question of why spend many thousands of dollars locking something down that'll be cracked within a few weeks. Sure it does help with sales initially, but you're typically having to sell a hell of a lot of copies in order to break even and it does put one at a competitive disadvantage to those that don't need to sell those extra copies. Not to mention the fact that there's a surprising number of people that don't pirate software that doesn't have DRM incorporated into it.
It just will give the publishers reasons to create business models where most of the profit is extracted from users while the DRM hasn't been cracked yet (or if it has, the work is not sufficiently disseminated to most users to be able to access it) all the while decrying the "evil pirates". I would assume it will still be (financially, at least on the short term) better for those publishers to follow that path than to adapt their business models to a world where the competition is must greater (because you must fight all the other works at near zero cost).
Until the Copyright Term Extension Act is rescinded, I consider all media produced by "artists" affiliated with the companies/guilds/unions that bought the law, to be free.
So, how will you feel when someone else considers anything you produce to be free?
Free to make copies of? I would assume he feels OK with that.
Perhaps "liberal" refers to freedom in some countries. But in the United States, it has come to mean "socialist" since the New Deal. And in order to support socialist ideals like universal health care, many socialist regimes limit the personal freedom to experiment with substances such as cannabis.
Stangely enough, I believe drug-offense laws are much more prevalent in conservative-led countries (like the US), not the socialist-inclined (and less still in social-democrat - in the European tradition - countries - see, e.g. The Netherlands). They are much more liable to limit personal freedom on the economic level, though.
we need to be careful that politicians do not get talked into putting legislation in place that, in the end, ends up looking stupid.
or even worse, introduces new problems without solving the intended ones.
Trouble is, some of the new problems it introduces (namely overbearing policing of actions online, bordering on a police state) are not usually seen as problems by the politicians (at least those in power or which hope to achieve it soon), but rather goals that they date not describe publicly...
Self-replying, I know, but I just thought of something else.
According to TFS, Office fails to load ODF files created by any other application. If those files are compliant with ODF standards, the blame for this lies squarely on Microsoft. They fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Conversely, if the files produced by MS Office are valid standards-compliant ODF files (which they may be according to the letter of the standard) we should also blame the other apps if they fail to use them, isn't so? They will also fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.
Then there's the burden on the copyright holder. Presently, the bar for copyrighting a work is very low. Basically, the work is copyrighted at the time of creation. This is a good thing. It means that anyone willing to create a work for the benefit of society and/or themselves can do so without any extra effort or onerous paperwork. This not only encourages contribution, it makes copyrighting as we know it today possible. If authors had to submit documents every year for everything they held copyright on, it would be an insurmountable task for many. Just about any written word put on paper (or screen) by a company is copyrighted. The average company wouldn't be able to keep up with this, let alone websites, blog authors, independent artists, research firms, record labels, and even regular Slashdot posters.
And if that works would lose copyright protection, why precisely would that be a problem ? The number of "serendipitous successes", that is work that is a unexpected success and whose authors benefit from copyright rewards after must surely be a lot smaller than the number of "orphan" works that would benefit society to access. I myself, although a published author, would very much agree to a copyright statute that would require active management to keep the copyright monopoly on reproduction of owns work.
If we can halve the risk to the mother while doubling the risk to the embryo - I'm all for it.
Well, you might as well take that to the logical conclusion, reducing the risk to the mother to zero while ensuring disaster to the embryo, by not getting her pregnant in the first place.
True, but in that case he will not be able to easily pass his genes to the next generation, and as such, it is not a viable evolutionary choice.
Bah, everyone knows the real achievement is getting a frist post!
Or posting on a silly thread just to get the achiev...
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"