Discussion:
Do apps *have to* be installed in the Applications folder?
(too old to reply)
c***@gmail.com
2007-12-10 03:25:16 UTC
Permalink
I am going to install some software like adobe creative suite 3.

but i am worried that when i send my mac mini in for repair, apple
might notice the pirated software and then delete it.

so can i put it on an external hdd? (I have an intel mac so it can be
either firewire or usb2).

is that a genuis idea, or what?!
Wes Groleau
2007-12-10 03:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
I am going to install some software like adobe creative suite 3.
but i am worried that when i send my mac mini in for repair, apple
might notice the pirated software and then delete it.
so can i put it on an external hdd? (I have an intel mac so it can be
either firewire or usb2).
is that a genuis idea, or what?!
No, pure stupidity, starting with theft and going downhill from there
--
Wes Groleau

"There are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."
Warren Oates
2007-12-10 13:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Groleau
No, pure stupidity, starting with theft and going downhill from there
More than that: If I were to send my Mac in for service, I'd send it in
with nothing more than a clean install of the OS that shipped with it.
If it needs service, it needs to start from scratch, methinks.
--
W. Oates
Gregory Weston
2007-12-10 12:40:02 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
I am going to install some software like adobe creative suite 3.
but i am worried that when i send my mac mini in for repair, apple
might notice the pirated software and then delete it.
When you send your Mac in for repair, you should have a reliable,
up-to-date backup regardless of whether your possession of any of it is
in violation of international law. Apple doesn't go through your stuff,
check with IP owners, and delete all the unlicensed apps and porn you've
got. But they might very well swap out your disk completely. Or just
erase the whole thing. They explicitly warn about this when you initiate
repair service. So install wherever you like, but definitely back up.
Post by c***@gmail.com
is that a genuis idea, or what?!
Possibly. I'm not sure what "genuis" means.
Robert Moir
2007-12-10 20:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by c***@gmail.com
is that a genuis idea, or what?!
Possibly. I'm not sure what "genuis" means.
I'd go with "He's a lot better at trolling than you are at avoiding obvious
trolls".

Honestly, what's the point in killfiling trolls if you end up knee deep in
half complete threads from people who reply to them?
zoara
2007-12-10 21:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Moir
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by c***@gmail.com
is that a genuis idea, or what?!
Possibly. I'm not sure what "genuis" means.
I'd go with "He's a lot better at trolling than you are at avoiding obvious
trolls".
Honestly, what's the point in killfiling trolls if you end up knee deep in
half complete threads from people who reply to them?
Kill followups.

And I'm aware of the irony of this response.

-z-
--
No 3G. Fewer megapixels than an N95. Lame.
nospamatall
2007-12-10 21:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Moir
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by c***@gmail.com
is that a genuis idea, or what?!
Possibly. I'm not sure what "genuis" means.
I'd go with "He's a lot better at trolling than you are at avoiding obvious
trolls".
Honestly, what's the point in killfiling trolls if you end up knee deep in
half complete threads from people who reply to them?
I find it better to just kill threads. I find that annoying too. Overall
Usenet is much better than web boards though.

Andy
Ymir
2007-12-10 15:22:14 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
I am going to install some software like adobe creative suite 3.
Well, since CS3 requires activation from Adobe, that might not work.
Post by c***@gmail.com
but i am worried that when i send my mac mini in for repair, apple
might notice the pirated software and then delete it.
so can i put it on an external hdd? (I have an intel mac so it can be
either firewire or usb2).
I'm answering this more for other readers of this group rather than you,
since I'm not a big fan of thieves.

You can in principle install applications anywhere that you want.*
However, there are some good reasons to put them in the application
folder.

First, software update (Apple's for sure, and presumably many third
party auto-updaters) expect to find software there and might not notice
software installed elsewhere.

Second, when your computer searches for applications associated with
particular documents, it begins its search in the applications folder
before searching the whole drive, so documents may take longer to open
if the application isn't installed in the applications folder (if you
add a ~/Applications folder to your home directory that will also be
searched prior to other locations -- I can't recall whether it will be
searched before or after /Applications).

André

*There might, of course, be specific applications out there which employ
employ absolute paths for which this might not be true, but I can't
think of why a sane programmer would do that.
nospam
2007-12-10 21:04:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
I am going to install some software like adobe creative suite 3.
Well, since CS3 requires activation from Adobe, that might not work.
the cs3 installer can install to alternate locations.
Post by Gregory Weston
You can in principle install applications anywhere that you want.*
However, there are some good reasons to put them in the application
folder.
not really. the only requirement is that apple's apps need to be there
for their updater to work.
Post by Gregory Weston
First, software update (Apple's for sure, and presumably many third
party auto-updaters) expect to find software there and might not notice
software installed elsewhere.
i've yet to find a third party updater that cares where an app is.
worst case the user has to pick where the application actually is.
Post by Gregory Weston
Second, when your computer searches for applications associated with
particular documents, it begins its search in the applications folder
before searching the whole drive, so documents may take longer to open
if the application isn't installed in the applications folder (if you
add a ~/Applications folder to your home directory that will also be
searched prior to other locations -- I can't recall whether it will be
searched before or after /Applications).
i've not seen any delay whatsoever in putting apps elsewhere.
Post by Gregory Weston
*There might, of course, be specific applications out there which employ
employ absolute paths for which this might not be true, but I can't
think of why a sane programmer would do that.
you mean, like apple's updater that hard codes paths to the
applications folder?
c***@gmail.com
2007-12-11 01:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for the useful advice

I used SuperDuper (free and very easy to use) to clone my HDD onto a
USB drive. Pre intel days I was limited to firewire (if I wanted to
boot from the drive)

It took about 2 hours to copy everything across


I think it is a good idea to WIPE my HDD before I take it to the Apple
store. (Clean install). Since they may decide to format it anyway...

So I could install the Adobe CS3 on a USB2 or FW hard drive, but then
it wouldn't load if I forget to plug the drive in... and that would be
a pain in the butt...

soo..... I might as well just install it on my HDD and then SuperDuper
it, clean wipe it & take it into Apple.


Over the weekend I downloaded over 7 gigs of files a hosting site.
I've stitched them together (split & Concat) and now I'm ready to
install CS3.

I'm no thief. If I could afford it, I would pay for it. But I can't.
And it makes absolutely no difference to Adobe's bottom line. Besides,
I'm endorsing their product providing valuable promotion to several
organisations. If anything, they should be paying me.

Obviously I'll use Little Snitch to block the software calling home
Gregory Weston
2007-12-11 02:42:08 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
Over the weekend I downloaded over 7 gigs of files a hosting site.
I've stitched them together (split & Concat) and now I'm ready to
install CS3.
I'm no thief. If I could afford it, I would pay for it. But I can't.
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And it makes absolutely no difference to Adobe's bottom line.
True, but you're getting a benefit from a product without having the
right to do so.

G
c***@gmail.com
2007-12-11 03:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
Over the weekend I downloaded over 7 gigs of files a hosting site.
I've stitched them together (split & Concat) and now I'm ready to
install CS3.
I'm no thief. If I could afford it, I would pay for it. But I can't.
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And it makes absolutely no difference to Adobe's bottom line.
True, but you're getting a benefit from a product without having the
right to do so.
G
Yeah but I MIGHT buy it one day in the future.


Stranger things have happened.

I love piracy cos there's no chance of ever being caught.
Steve Hix
2007-12-11 06:03:39 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Gregory Weston
In article
Post by c***@gmail.com
Over the weekend I downloaded over 7 gigs of files a hosting site.
I've stitched them together (split & Concat) and now I'm ready to
install CS3.
I'm no thief. If I could afford it, I would pay for it. But I can't.
Gee...most people do without, or look for something more affordable,
until they can actually afford to pay for something they want.

"You've already made perfectly clear what you are; now we're just
haggling over the price."
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
Post by c***@gmail.com
And it makes absolutely no difference to Adobe's bottom line.
True, but you're getting a benefit from a product without having the
right to do so.
G
Yeah but I MIGHT buy it one day in the future.
Stranger things have happened.
Yeah, like Bud downtown actually buying a used car instead of nicking
whichever comes conveniently to hand when he feels like driving.
Post by c***@gmail.com
I love piracy cos there's no chance of ever being caught.
Unlike stealing cars, or candy from small kids.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-11 08:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hix
Post by c***@gmail.com
Post by c***@gmail.com
Over the weekend I downloaded over 7 gigs of files a hosting site.
I've stitched them together (split & Concat) and now I'm ready to
install CS3.
I'm no thief. If I could afford it, I would pay for it. But I can't.
Gee...most people do without, or look for something more affordable,
until they can actually afford to pay for something they want.
"You've already made perfectly clear what you are; now we're just
haggling over the price."
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy' -
is not the crime of theft (since nothing has been taken from anyone; the
failure to achieve a software sale is not the same as taking something
from someone) but a civil offence of breach of copyright instead.

[snip]
Post by Steve Hix
Post by c***@gmail.com
I love piracy cos there's no chance of ever being caught.
Unlike stealing cars, or candy from small kids.
Since you deprive no-one of anything when you make a copy of copyright
material, the situation is not comparable. Theft is a crime. Piracy is
a very serious crime. Making illegal copies is a civil offence - and
you don't take anything from anyone when you do it.

Not that I condone making unauthorised copies of copyright material, but
I'm also not about to condone people making false allegations of
/criminal/ activity when no crime has taken place.

Why not just treat this clown's request for help with illegal activity
with humour, and try to give him advice that'll cause him to mess up his
own computer? That would at least be funny. I have no sense of humour,
so I'll not attempt anything like that.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Jeffrey Goldberg
2007-12-11 22:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy' -
is not the crime of theft
Thank you. I was tempted to point out the same thing. And I loath those
"downloading is theft" or "buying pirated movies is stealing" ads I see
on the DVDs I rent. I believe that the MPAA is hurting its case with
those ads.

But when people here call such piracy theft, the are not speaking in legal
or technical terms. Their statements are that is the moral equivalent of
theft. I wouldn't go quite that far myself, but I also oppose copyright
violation. (I also oppose being sucked into a thread originated by an
obvious troll, but here I am.)
Post by Rowland McDonnell
[...] but a civil offence of breach of copyright instead.
In US law there is also statutory copyright violation. I don't know hot
it differs from the civil law, but some instances of copyright violation
are crimes.

-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
http://improve-usenet.org/
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 01:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy' -
is not the crime of theft
Thank you. I was tempted to point out the same thing. And I loath those
"downloading is theft" or "buying pirated movies is stealing" ads I see
on the DVDs I rent. I believe that the MPAA is hurting its case with
those ads.
They're certainly pissing me off. I object when I am forced to watch a
nasty threatening notice warning me not to `steal' copyright material
when I've just sat down to view a DVD I've just damned well purchased
entirely legitimately. And I object strongly to the heavy-handed
actions of the RIAA in suing people who download music for personal use
- go after the sources, for heavens' sake! And in any case, the methods
it's using to go after the downloaders are against the spirit of truth
and justice and freedom if you ask me.

The UK equivalent of the RIAA isn't being so stupid.
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
But when people here call such piracy theft, the are not speaking in legal
or technical terms.
But it's how it's viewed - the terms `piracy' and `theft' are loaded
terms designed to get people to swallow the bullshit that the big firms
that have (morally speaking) stolen almost all the music copyright in
the world. Have you noticed that creative artists never seem to get any
copyright control over money-making creative ventures like films and
music and so on? It's because the copyright is in effect stolen by big
business, for all that they'll point to the fact that they only break
moral codes, not laws, in what they do.

When people use those terms - `piracy', `theft', they are in effect
lying in a most pernicious fashion as far as I'm concerned: it's
spinning, newspeak, languge I won't put up with because the big
businesses that have (morally speaking) stolen most of the music
copyright in the world are trying to get `us' to swallow their bullshit
about breach of copyright being the same as theft, when it's nothing
remotely like that. But if you swallow it when people talk about
`theft' or `piracy' when they mean `making copies without permission',
then you're working for The Man.

(Sorry, I was /born/ in 1967, so that language really is an anarchronism
for me and why did it take me so long to recall that word? Hmm. I'm
not sure I've ever written it before, might be why)
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Their statements are that is the moral equivalent of
theft.
And that is a lie put about by the big companies that have taken
copyright from the creative artists that copyright is supposed to
encourage. Copyright's not working any more, is one problem. Another
problem is that the typical music recording contract is the moral
equivalent of theft from the creative artists, and those who do the
stealing of the copyright then complain when we don't have much respect
for them - well, would you respect someone who's morally a thief and who
then complains that you're guilty of the fault that they are guilty of?
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
I wouldn't go quite that far myself, but I also oppose copyright
violation. (I also oppose being sucked into a thread originated by an
obvious troll, but here I am.)
Well, he's a troll, but he's also trying to get help. He's an odd one,
is that. But this part of the thread is civilised, yes?

Now, what I oppose is unjust copyright laws and unjust implementation of
copyright in contracts and so on. I am in favour of breaking copyright
by way of protest since copyright has been warped in application, with
the law being changed in recent years in order to discourage creative
artists, and to prevent them getting the benefit of their labour.

For example, a music recording is copyright `the record firm'. The
artists who /recorded/ the music have no rights at all to their work -
none. The artist who wrote the music keeps his copyright on the
composition, mind - so when you buy a CD, you'll find that the people
who get rich are the song writer and the record label. The actual
musicians get screwed.

And then you've got the problem of copyright being extended from 25
years after the author's death (sensible, to look after any dependents
and so on) to the curent lunatic 70 years - that does nothing but harm
to the creative landscape: the idea is to stifle creativity and permit
big business to carry on making obscene money from material that should
have dropped out of copyright decades before.

Copyright is unjust and no longer fit for purpose and I advocate a
programme of entirely peaceful civil disobedience by way of protest
until our masters change copyright law back into something that protects
and encourages creative artists.
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Post by Rowland McDonnell
[...] but a civil offence of breach of copyright instead.
In US law there is also statutory copyright violation. I don't know hot
it differs from the civil law, but some instances of copyright violation
are crimes.
-j
I've heard disturbing reports that recent changes to copyright law in
the USA have apparently made it possible to take action against some
breaches of copyright in the criminal courts if the action took place
under US jurisdiction. An example of yet more incredibly unjust
legislation, I'm afraid - but one shouldn't be surprised at bully-boy
tactics from a nation that sent its man to London to explain that it was
pefectly okay for the USA to kidnap UK citizens inside the UK, take them
somewhere else, hold them imprisoned without access to the outside
world, and torture them. The representative of the US government
explained that all this was perfectly okay because the law of the USA
permitted it, according to US government advisors.

Our police do not view things the same way, and nor do our courts. The
USA could get into some serious trouble over this one.

Look: the US government has completely lost its grip on reality and
seems to be acting in a fashion designed to whip up as much
anti-American feeling as possible. They've even mangaged to get most
people in the UK against the USA, and we're the USA's only reliable - or
nearly so - ally in the world. Not bright behaviour on the part of
Dubya's administration, but there you go.

Just elect someone less fuckwitted next time, eh? Even if it is someone
called Clinton.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 02:33:33 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy' -
is not the crime of theft
Thank you. I was tempted to point out the same thing. And I loath those
"downloading is theft" or "buying pirated movies is stealing" ads I see
on the DVDs I rent. I believe that the MPAA is hurting its case with
those ads.
They're certainly pissing me off. I object when I am forced to watch a
nasty threatening notice warning me not to `steal' copyright material
when I've just sat down to view a DVD I've just damned well purchased
entirely legitimately. And I object strongly to the heavy-handed
actions of the RIAA in suing people who download music for personal use
- go after the sources, for heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 03:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy'
- is not the crime of theft
Thank you. I was tempted to point out the same thing. And I loath
those "downloading is theft" or "buying pirated movies is stealing"
ads I see on the DVDs I rent. I believe that the MPAA is hurting its
case with those ads.
They're certainly pissing me off. I object when I am forced to watch a
nasty threatening notice warning me not to `steal' copyright material
when I've just sat down to view a DVD I've just damned well purchased
entirely legitimately. And I object strongly to the heavy-handed
actions of the RIAA in suing people who download music for personal use
- go after the sources, for heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders, and
targetting domestic uploaders is silly. There are far too many of them
for it to be possible to make a difference that way unless you really
want to live in a police state (such as Dubya seems to be trying to
create in the USA, except he seems to want daddy's old firm, the CIA, in
charge. Get rid of Dubya! Make the USA sane again!).

The source has to be blocked off some other way. Personally, I don't
understand all this messing around with copy prevention rubbish (they
call it `DRM', but they mean copy prevention). The sensible thing to do
is to watermark all copyright works with a unique watermark on each work
- so if you find a copy out there, you can trace it back to the source.
That'd help 'em get to the bottom of the serious problems.

But ordinary people at home? Let 'em be - they're not the problem.
Home Taping Is Killing Music is what they told us in the early 1980s.
That was a lie - home taping spread the music further, and resulted in
more music being sold. Same with file sharing these days as far as I
can tell - just not the particular music that the record firms want to
sell to us, poor dears.

Well, record companies are obsolete in their current forms, and what
with them having been stealing copyright to rip-off hard-working
deserving artists[1] for decades (it started in the 1920s, so I'm told),
I have absolutely no sympathy for anything bad that happens to any of
the big names in the biz.

Rowland.

[1] Just using record company language.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 11:37:28 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
And I object strongly to the heavy-handed actions of the RIAA in suing
people who download music for personal use - go after the sources, for
heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
Post by Rowland McDonnell
and targeting domestic uploaders is silly.
And yet it's the crux of actually protecting IP. You're defending
yourself from people who've assumed the role of distributors without the
right to do so. The fact that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy, slimy
idiots doesn't mean that everything they do or say is automatically
incorrect from a legal standpoint. Just most of it.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
There are far too many of them
for it to be possible to make a difference that way unless you really
want to live in a police state (such as Dubya seems to be trying to
create in the USA, except he seems to want daddy's old firm, the CIA, in
charge. Get rid of Dubya! Make the USA sane again!).
The RIAA has been going after what they see as inappropriate copying for
decades, and online redistribution for nearly a decade. The current
administration has nothing to do with it. For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
The source has to be blocked off some other way. Personally, I don't
understand all this messing around with copy prevention rubbish (they
call it `DRM', but they mean copy prevention).
Yes. Because the right to copy is pretty much paramount in this arena.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
The sensible thing to do
is to watermark all copyright works with a unique watermark on each work
- so if you find a copy out there, you can trace it back to the source.
That'd help 'em get to the bottom of the serious problems.
That would pretty much require the end of physical distribution and not
be reliable. It's also fairly close to how modern DRM works for
electronic distribution, but you just got through railing against that.
Then again, you also said they should go after the sources, but now are
fussy about which sources they go after and how. You should pick a
position and stick with it.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
But ordinary people at home? Let 'em be - they're not the problem.
Home Taping Is Killing Music is what they told us in the early 1980s.
You're off by quite a bit. The industry was going after home recording
as a practice (not necessarily individual practitioners) long before
that.

G
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 11:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
The RIAA has been going after what they see as inappropriate copying for
decades, and online redistribution for nearly a decade. The current
administration has nothing to do with it. For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots. They don't listen to reason, don't live in the real world, and
don't have to make a living from producing content. They're not
creators, they're just leeches.

Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so. Many do. They have their reasons. But for
others, it's their living at stake.

It doesn't mean the RIAA are always right, but without some effort of
that kind there'd be no content worth downloading, at all.
--
Peter
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 12:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots.
Errr....no. No, I'm neither greedy nor a zealot. For decades I've been
able to copy things anyway on VHS or record-to-tape, no DRM involved.
I've been able to take my vinyl record and play it on anybody's record
player anywhere, none of this "five record players only and that's it,
oh - and we track 'em" rubbish. None of this "can play on -this- brand
of record player but not -that- brand of record player" rubbish. None
of this "we'll delete it in five days, or perhaps we'll intentionally
degrade your picture instead " (the HDMI junk) - none of it.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned copying once. Nor leaching and using
for free. And I am very much against DRM.

Let's ask the Beeb about it shall we. Remind me now - how many of their
current DVD releases they're making money from are from reconstructed
fan copies (I'm thinking 70s and earlier Doctor Who for instance)? Or
I'm listening to a Radio 4 podcast right now - how much DRM on that
precisely? And yet people still appear to be making a living and being
paid.


Cheers,
Ian
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 12:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Peter Ceresole
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots.
Errr....no. No, I'm neither greedy nor a zealot. For decades I've been
able to copy things anyway on VHS or record-to-tape, no DRM involved.
I've been able to take my vinyl record and play it on anybody's record
player anywhere, none of this "five record players only and that's it,
oh - and we track 'em" rubbish.
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine. If you wanted to play it on a
different device, you had to uninstall it from the current location and
reinstall elsewhere or suffer with a copy that most people could tell
was degraded. Oh, and don't forget that your source record is going to
degrade _every_time_you_play_it_, including when you make that copy.
Tapes will fail whether you play them or not. With, for example, iTunes
DRM mechanism, your content can exist in a real sense in 5 places at
once, and don't degrade with use or backup. If the DRM is too
restrictive, you're perfectly welcome to make a *lossy* copy; just like
you could with your record.

G
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 14:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?

If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Post by Gregory Weston
...If the DRM is too
restrictive, you're perfectly welcome to make a *lossy* copy; just like
you could with your record.
Not really, no. Not with the secure pathways and the HDMI junk coming
on with DRM.



Cheers,
Ian
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 15:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?
I did, but I also noticed you had deflected the conversation from being
about content to being about media. As a practical matter, non-degraded
use of DRM'd iTunes content is *less* restricted than vinyl. Copying or
not.
Post by Ian McCall
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Removing DRM from iTunes tracks is trivial in the sense that it's both
documented and easy. It also has shortcomings, different from but
comparable to those involved in dealing with your vinyl.
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
...If the DRM is too
restrictive, you're perfectly welcome to make a *lossy* copy; just like
you could with your record.
Not really, no. Not with the secure pathways and the HDMI junk coming
on with DRM.
Yes, really. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "welcome" because
there are some entities who won't want you doing. But they won't
realistically be able to stop you. They'll be able to make it *very*
difficult to get a lossless copy, but lossless copies weren't
historically an option period. Difficult is better than impossible in my
book.
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 16:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?
I did, but I also noticed you had deflected the conversation from being
about content to being about media.
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
Post by Gregory Weston
As a practical matter, non-degraded
use of DRM'd iTunes content is *less* restricted than vinyl. Copying or
not.
Post by Ian McCall
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Removing DRM from iTunes tracks is trivial in the sense that it's both
documented and easy.
then...err...why sell it?
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
...If the DRM is too
restrictive, you're perfectly welcome to make a *lossy* copy; just like
you could with your record.
Not really, no. Not with the secure pathways and the HDMI junk coming
on with DRM.
Yes, really. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "welcome" because
there are some entities who won't want you doing. But they won't
realistically be able to stop you. They'll be able to make it *very*
difficult to get a lossless copy, but lossless copies weren't
historically an option period. Difficult is better than impossible in my
book.
Artificial difficulties tend to get bypassed. In my case it's been
'bypassed' by ignoring it, I've not bought any of the new HD media
stuff because it looks ridiculously restrictive and laden to the gills
with things designed to work against the person who has paid for it. As
Zoara points out in another post, I'd get better service by just
pirating the thing. In my case I don't do that - I don't do the
filesharing thing for films, music or software and I support action
against it (though not some of the levels of damages claims or some of
the individual tactics).

To digress a little, on the odd occasion that I buy a film and then
actually watch the disc instead of immediately ripping it, I'm always
astonished at how aggressive and unpleasant they make it for legitimate
buyers. Unskippable rubbish, ludicrous anti-piracy campaign - horrible.
Anyone who's done the downloading thing instead will get a superior
product. And I've -paid- for mine.

I remember it particularly sticking out on a DVD box set of the The
Thin Man films my wife bought for me a while ago. I'm a fan of
thirties/early forties comedy, I find the dialogue in it very sharp
(Bringing Up Baby, Philadelphia Story, The Thin Man etc.). Plastered on
the the beginning of every disc in the set is this offensively loud
'edgy' unskippable anti-piracy thing, which as I'm sure you can see
fits in -so- well with the sound levels and atmosphere of the 30s.
Really enhances the experience and makes me want to buy another.
Honest. No really, it does...


Cheers,
Ian
Tim Streater
2007-12-12 16:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?
I did, but I also noticed you had deflected the conversation from being
about content to being about media.
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
Post by Gregory Weston
As a practical matter, non-degraded
use of DRM'd iTunes content is *less* restricted than vinyl. Copying or
not.
Post by Ian McCall
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Removing DRM from iTunes tracks is trivial in the sense that it's both
documented and easy.
then...err...why sell it?
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
...If the DRM is too
restrictive, you're perfectly welcome to make a *lossy* copy; just like
you could with your record.
Not really, no. Not with the secure pathways and the HDMI junk coming
on with DRM.
Yes, really. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "welcome" because
there are some entities who won't want you doing. But they won't
realistically be able to stop you. They'll be able to make it *very*
difficult to get a lossless copy, but lossless copies weren't
historically an option period. Difficult is better than impossible in my
book.
Artificial difficulties tend to get bypassed. In my case it's been
'bypassed' by ignoring it, I've not bought any of the new HD media
stuff because it looks ridiculously restrictive and laden to the gills
with things designed to work against the person who has paid for it. As
Zoara points out in another post, I'd get better service by just
pirating the thing. In my case I don't do that - I don't do the
filesharing thing for films, music or software and I support action
against it (though not some of the levels of damages claims or some of
the individual tactics).
To digress a little, on the odd occasion that I buy a film and then
actually watch the disc instead of immediately ripping it, I'm always
astonished at how aggressive and unpleasant they make it for legitimate
buyers. Unskippable rubbish, ludicrous anti-piracy campaign - horrible.
Anyone who's done the downloading thing instead will get a superior
product. And I've -paid- for mine.
I remember it particularly sticking out on a DVD box set of the The
Thin Man films my wife bought for me a while ago. I'm a fan of
thirties/early forties comedy, I find the dialogue in it very sharp
(Bringing Up Baby, Philadelphia Story, The Thin Man etc.). Plastered on
the the beginning of every disc in the set is this offensively loud
'edgy' unskippable anti-piracy thing, which as I'm sure you can see
fits in -so- well with the sound levels and atmosphere of the 30s.
Really enhances the experience and makes me want to buy another.
Honest. No really, it does...
We have that "Thin Man" set too and I agree 100% that the shit at the
beginning is not what I asked for. Indeed I don't see it listed anywhere
on the box, either.
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 16:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
And I mean that in reality, you are objectively both. You may be a nice
chap, pure as the driven snow, but DRM or some such system is all that
stands between content creators and the abyss. It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM. Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
--
Peter
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 18:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Ian McCall
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
And I mean that in reality, you are objectively both.
-Subjectively-. In your opinion that is true and I understand that. In
my opinion I am not. It is not an objective thing. You are speaking
from one possible point of view from a producer - not shared by all it
must be said, hence DRM-free stores appearing - and I am speaking from
one possible point of view from a consumer. Other consumers are happy
with DRM, hence the initial iTMS success.
Post by Peter Ceresole
You may be a nice
chap, pure as the driven snow, but DRM or some such system is all that
stands between content creators and the abyss.
Can't see that - if that was the case, how did people survive selling
easily copiable CDs or DVDs for years? Why are a number of music stores
switching to DRM'less models?
Post by Peter Ceresole
It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM. Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
Again, can't see that necessarily. I know I'd carry on writing music, I
know many others would carry on writing music and playing it. Films? A
much more problematic argument on my side but the current model is
simply leading me to buy less and having 100% successful DRM would
probably stop me buying at all. I'd just choose to do something else, I
suspect many others might too.

I'd suggest that honest people will be honest no matter what and buy,
and dishonest will be dishonest no matter what and download. DRM won't
stop the dishonest and won't encourage the honest. So what's its point?


Cheers,
Ian
Elliott Roper
2007-12-12 20:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Ian McCall
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
And I mean that in reality, you are objectively both.
-Subjectively-. In your opinion that is true and I understand that. In
my opinion I am not. It is not an objective thing. You are speaking
from one possible point of view from a producer - not shared by all it
must be said, hence DRM-free stores appearing - and I am speaking from
one possible point of view from a consumer. Other consumers are happy
with DRM, hence the initial iTMS success.
Nicely put Ian. Peter is a persuasive bloke, and there is truth in what
he says, but it is not the whole truth. In the current DRM mess,
neither the creator nor the consumer is getting a fair deal.

Many creators and consumers know this well. For many creators, it means
looking for a new way of getting rewarded that does not involve the
veniality of the media machinery. (Radiohead's tip jar?) For many
consumers, the greed and chicanery of the media biz is so obvious and
distasteful that it justifies matching behaviour on their part.
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Peter Ceresole
You may be a nice
chap, pure as the driven snow, but DRM or some such system is all that
stands between content creators and the abyss.
Can't see that - if that was the case, how did people survive selling
easily copiable CDs or DVDs for years? Why are a number of music stores
switching to DRM'less models?
Indeed. It is fair to add that copying has been getting easier and
better quality lately. CD to cassette was always a single generation
thing.
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Peter Ceresole
It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM. Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
Again, can't see that necessarily. I know I'd carry on writing music, I
know many others would carry on writing music and playing it. Films? A
much more problematic argument on my side but the current model is
simply leading me to buy less and having 100% successful DRM would
probably stop me buying at all. I'd just choose to do something else, I
suspect many others might too.
Ultimately, the market sets a fair price. If there is no distribution
and packaging cost, then the creator deserves a greater share of the
pie. If the creator can compete with his/her own blog and website, well
then, the media biz is in a difficult negotiating position with the
creator when it comes to promotion expenses.

We are in a period of transition. The media biz, with all its political
clout, is fighting to preserve its venial business methods. Most
consumers would react favourably to a market that rewarded creators
well and rewarded the old time media moguls in line with their
re-assessed value in delivering content to the consumer.

DRM tech is currently a total mess. It penalises honest buyers. It
rewards pirates. It does nothing much to help content creators. In
spite of what Peter says. He's right, as long as no DRM - current DRM
is the only game in town.

What is needed is son-of-DRM, where it becomes ridiculously easy for a
consumer to acquire media and even easier to reward the creator
directly. It has to be easier to do so than not. Currently the RIAA and
the media biz has placed the reward to the creator far too low, tried
to make the cost of rewarding the creator 'not through them' to be
ridiculously high, and established an environment where the pirate is
well rewarded and respectable.

The biz has completely lost the plot. Sooner or later there will be a
new price book.

I can think of several alternatives to DRM that match.
For visual media, the creator could distribute via torrent or other
'cheap for the sender' means, a heavily watermarked file containing the
vast bulk of the content. The consumer may elect to pay for a
de-watermarking download of a few megabytes or so. That will replace
the ugly "I'm a cheapskate" on-screen display with another invisible
watermark identifying the transaction. This watermark will be extremely
difficult to erase. (there are efficient algorithms for ensuring this)
The consumer may elect to on-sell that copy, and risk identification
and prosecution, or be confronted with a watermark removal cost (big
computer and electricity bill) that will require him to sell very large
numbers of copies at a price barely less than a legit de-watermark file
before breaking even. Even then his customers are exposed to possessing
a copy that is provably stolen.

Audio media would get a similar de-watermarking, without the need for a
massive de-watermarking support file. It would be simple enough to
distribute uniquely coded audio from the creator to each recipient.
Yes, it is possible to inscribe a watermark that survives a
digital-to-analogue-and-back-to-digital transformation.

Honest people will be able to make as many private copies of it as they
like, (always risking one of their 'mates' dropping them in it.) The
commercial pirates won't have a business.
Post by Ian McCall
I'd suggest that honest people will be honest no matter what and buy,
and dishonest will be dishonest no matter what and download. DRM won't
stop the dishonest and won't encourage the honest. So what's its point?
Again. That is well said Ian.

I'd go further, and say that today's DRM makes dishonest = respectable.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 22:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elliott Roper
Nicely put Ian. Peter is a persuasive bloke, and there is truth in what
he says, but it is not the whole truth.
Even I wouldn't clainm that. But I do claim to be speaking th4e
*essential* truth.

Ah.... Fra Domenicus would be proud of me...
Post by Elliott Roper
In the current DRM mess,
neither the creator nor the consumer is getting a fair deal.
I don't say they're getting a fair deal. But I'm saying that the creator
stands a chance of making a living. Without DRM, there's no viable long
term solution for creators. One may tuen up, bit there's nothing on
offer yet.
--
Peter
zoara
2007-12-13 00:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elliott Roper
What is needed is son-of-DRM, where it becomes ridiculously easy for a
consumer to acquire media and even easier to reward the creator
directly. It has to be easier to do so than not. Currently the RIAA and
the media biz has placed the reward to the creator far too low, tried
to make the cost of rewarding the creator 'not through them' to be
ridiculously high, and established an environment where the pirate is
well rewarded and respectable.
Bingo.

-z-
--
No 3G. Fewer megapixels than an N95. Lame.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-13 03:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Elliott Roper <***@yrl.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Elliott Roper
Ultimately, the market sets a fair price.
If and only if there is a free market with free competition: that does
not exist in this case.

[snip]

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Elliott Roper
2007-12-13 17:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
Post by Elliott Roper
Ultimately, the market sets a fair price.
If and only if there is a free market with free competition: that does
not exist in this case.
[snip]
That *was* the point I was trying to develop. It ain't too hot now, but
that can't last forever. The key word was "Ultimately". You know, like
JM Keynes famous ending to "In the long run...
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
nospamatall
2007-12-13 17:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elliott Roper
Yes, it is possible to inscribe a watermark that survives a
digital-to-analogue-and-back-to-digital transformation.
not without degrading quality. By definition it would have to be there
in the film itself. At least that was the situation a few months ago
when I last loooked. Do you have any references to a system like this
(apart from the manufacturers' own advertising - say, a peer-reviewed
journal article)?
nospamatall
2007-12-13 16:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
I'd suggest that honest people will be honest no matter what and buy,
and dishonest will be dishonest no matter what and download. DRM won't
stop the dishonest and won't encourage the honest. So what's its point?
I think that shows the point of DRM. It's not about piracy. Like you
say, it's about the honest people. It's an attempt to screw the honest
people.

Andy
nospamatall
2007-12-13 17:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Peter Ceresole
It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM. Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
Again, can't see that necessarily. I know I'd carry on writing music, I
know many others would carry on writing music and playing it.
Reminds me of what Syeve McKaye said:

"If people lose their incentive to make music because they're not making
money, they're not musicians. They're business people. Musicians don't
have a choice in the matter, you gotta make music. There's no choice!
It's not a fucking job description, there's no choice! You make music
because it's what you do and the idea that it's sort of like saying
that, "Well, this person is an artist, they're a painter, but because
they can't sell their paintings they're going to quit." If they do,
they're not artists! They're business people.

"...So in my mind with the sales of records, the industry has done their
best to claim ownership of music but they don't-- they only own the
things that they sell, so when people who are songwriters say, "That's
my property and if you give it away for free then I lose my incentive,"
then, well, good riddance."
http://www.downhillbattle.org/interviews/ian_mackaye.php

and see
http://negativland.com/albini.html
"The Problem with music" for a good description of how the record
companies operate.
Andy
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Ian McCall
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
And I mean that in reality, you are objectively both. You may be a nice
chap, pure as the driven snow, but DRM or some such system is all that
stands between content creators and the abyss.
But that is nonsense. Care to come up with some examples?
Post by Peter Ceresole
It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM.
But it's not: so-called DRM (copy prevention and rights denial
technology is a better name) doesn't work properly, for one thing. Copy
prevention technology has proven ineffective on music discs, and people
have been making copies of commerical music recordings on a large scale
since the 1970s.

Moreover, this copy prevention stuff, if it does work, does the job of
denying the right of a consumer to make a reasonable number of copies of
copyright work that they own for personal study.

And illegal copying didn't stop Iron Maiden getting to be huge just 'cos
half the heavy metal kids in London had their stuff on tape (and the
other half had bought the vinyl), did it? No, it did not. Iron Maiden
albums I have contain `Home taping is killing music' on the inner
sleeve; a record company lie.

And this is the other reason I mentioned Iron Maiden:

Way back when, I got some of my Iron Maiden on tape from a chap whose
dad - a music publisher and musician who made money selling recordings
of his music as well as performing live. Well, this dad was quite happy
to have his sons copy copyright music and give it to their friends.

And if you look around, you'll see that the only record firms that apply
copy-prevention rights denial technology to their music output are those
that take copyright away from recording artists for the privilege of
selling their music.

The decent record labels - small ones, such as Roy Harper's Science
Friction - don't apply this rights denial technology at all. And Roy
Harper makes a lot more from selling each CD than he would if they were
being sold by a record firm in a shop.

No, the problem is the record firms ripping off the artists.
Post by Peter Ceresole
Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
A nice theory that is contradicted by the reality of world we live in.

How can you make such a completely insane claim? The recording artists
aren't that madly keen to stop a bit of off-copyright distribution. It
seems that mostly they just want to get *enough* payment for their work
- and want to make bloody sure that no-one else is making money off the
back of their efforts while denying them the proceeds.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
zoara
2007-12-13 00:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Ian McCall
No deflection - responding to "anti-DRM people are greedy or zealots".
I'm anti-DRM. I'm not greedy. I'm not a zealot.
And I mean that in reality, you are objectively both. You may be a nice
chap, pure as the driven snow, but DRM or some such system is all that
stands between content creators and the abyss. It's no perfect, but then
nothing is perfect. But DRM is better than no DRM. Even for you, as
free, trivially easy duplication at full quality (which is the
alternative) would simply ensure that no new material was ever created
again.
How does that make Ian greedy and a zealot?

-z-
--
No 3G. Fewer megapixels than an N95. Lame.
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 19:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Removing DRM from iTunes tracks is trivial in the sense that it's both
documented and easy.
then...err...why sell it?
Because it keeps the honest people honest. It's a padlock on a cardboard
box. It's writing your name on the lunchbag in the company fridge.

You're never going to stop the determined, commercial pirate. Never
never never, and I don't think even at the RIAA there's anyone moronic
enough to think you can. But you can slow down the far more numerous
unthinking, casual copier enough to remind some of them that they're
about to step beyond fair use.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Ian McCall
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
Removing DRM from iTunes tracks is trivial in the sense that it's both
documented and easy.
then...err...why sell it?
Because it keeps the honest people honest. It's a padlock on a cardboard
box. It's writing your name on the lunchbag in the company fridge.
You're never going to stop the determined, commercial pirate. Never
never never, and I don't think even at the RIAA there's anyone moronic
enough to think you can.
But they're the only ones hurting the biz.
Post by Gregory Weston
But you can slow down the far more numerous
unthinking, casual copier enough to remind some of them that they're
about to step beyond fair use.
But they don't hurt the biz - and the copy prevention technology denies
the consumer the right to make copies for personal use and suchlike.
It's not a `reminder': it either denies you your rights, or it's utterly
ineffective. Most copy prevention and rights denial technology (what
the biz calls DRM) is utterly ineffective, one must say.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
nospam
2007-12-12 15:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
kind of like buying a vinyl record and then not being able to play it
in a cd player.
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 16:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Ian McCall
Post by Gregory Weston
You're wrong, though. The fundamental difference is that your record
could only play on *one* machine.
See the bit of the post where I said "notice that I haven't mentioned
copying"...?
If I decided tomorrow that an iPod was no longer the thing for me and I
wanted a different music player, I couldn't take any DRM'd tracks with
me and buy a different player. No copying involved, just straight
forward usage.
kind of like buying a vinyl record and then not being able to play it
in a cd player.
Hardly. It is, as said, exactly like buying a record and not being able
to use it in another record player. We're not talking about a new class
of device here, just a new model.


Cheers,
Ian
Richard Tobin
2007-12-12 13:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so.
So long as they don't use a Western Digital file server to do it:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/12/wd-makes-big-mistake

The presumption is that anything un-DRMed must be illegal.
Post by Peter Ceresole
don't have to make a living from producing content.
No-one *has* to make a living from producing content.

150 years ago no-one could make a living from selling recorded music
or movies; would it be so bad if that was true again?

-- Richard
--
:wq
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 14:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Ceresole
Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/12/wd-makes-big-mistake
The presumption is that anything un-DRMed must be illegal.
Post by Peter Ceresole
don't have to make a living from producing content.
No-one *has* to make a living from producing content.
150 years ago no-one could make a living from selling recorded music
or movies; would it be so bad if that was true again?
150 years ago, no-one could enjoy a performance of a song or show when
and where *they* found the time. You had to wait for a performance to
happen at a time you had available in a place you could get to, then get
tickets and make the trip along with whatever other preparation was
necessary and then accept the vagaries of that specific performance.

Would it be so bad if that was true again?
Richard Tobin
2007-12-12 15:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
150 years ago, no-one could enjoy a performance of a song or show when
and where *they* found the time. You had to wait for a performance to
happen at a time you had available in a place you could get to, then get
tickets and make the trip along with whatever other preparation was
necessary and then accept the vagaries of that specific performance.
Would it be so bad if that was true again?
Not really, as far as I'm concerned. But that isn't the alternative,
is it.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 18:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Gregory Weston
150 years ago, no-one could enjoy a performance of a song or show when
and where *they* found the time. You had to wait for a performance to
happen at a time you had available in a place you could get to, then get
tickets and make the trip along with whatever other preparation was
necessary and then accept the vagaries of that specific performance.
Would it be so bad if that was true again?
Not really, as far as I'm concerned.
Most people would miss out on at least the opportunity to be exposed to
a lot of quality art. Or the occasional guilty-pleasure dreck.
Post by Richard Tobin
But that isn't the alternative, is it.
One of us has misunderstood the other, I think, because as far as I'm
concerned that *is* the alternative. People are able to derive income
from recorded performances precisely because they have a value not
available from live or broadcast material. I've paid my money for the
ability to hear Jethro Tull's "Seal Driver" any time I want. According
to a site that tracks their concerts, they haven't played that song live
*anywhere*, let someplace I could've had a chance to listen at least
since the year started with a '2' and I've never heard it get airplay.
That's *why* they can make money from selling recorded content.
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 18:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
I've paid my money for the
ability to hear Jethro Tull's "Seal Driver" any time I want. According
to a site that tracks their concerts, they haven't played that song live
*anywhere*, let someplace I could've had a chance to listen at least
since the year started with a '2' and I've never heard it get airplay.
That's *why* they can make money from selling recorded content.
Interesting one that - available on iTunes, DRM-free...


Cheers,
Ian
Richard Tobin
2007-12-12 22:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
One of us has misunderstood the other, I think, because as far as I'm
concerned that *is* the alternative. People are able to derive income
from recorded performances precisely because they have a value not
available from live or broadcast material. I've paid my money for the
ability to hear Jethro Tull's "Seal Driver" any time I want. According
to a site that tracks their concerts, they haven't played that song live
*anywhere*, let someplace I could've had a chance to listen at least
since the year started with a '2' and I've never heard it get airplay.
That's *why* they can make money from selling recorded content.
But suppose they *couldn't* make money from it. Suppose we removed
the legally-imposed monopoly on publishing recordings. Would recorded
music disappear? Would there be less of it? Would it be of lower
quality than it is now? Are we (the general public) actually any
better of because musicians and record companies can make money out of
recordings? I'd be quite happy to take the risk and see what happens,
but then as I suggested it wouldn't really matter to me if it all went
wrong.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Gregory Weston
One of us has misunderstood the other, I think, because as far as I'm
concerned that *is* the alternative. People are able to derive income
from recorded performances precisely because they have a value not
available from live or broadcast material. I've paid my money for the
ability to hear Jethro Tull's "Seal Driver" any time I want. According
to a site that tracks their concerts, they haven't played that song live
*anywhere*, let someplace I could've had a chance to listen at least
since the year started with a '2' and I've never heard it get airplay.
That's *why* they can make money from selling recorded content.
But suppose they *couldn't* make money from it. Suppose we removed
the legally-imposed monopoly on publishing recordings. Would recorded
music disappear? Would there be less of it? Would it be of lower
quality than it is now? Are we (the general public) actually any
better of because musicians and record companies can make money out of
recordings?
Woo! Hold on a bit: don't forget that the musicians are forced by
iniquitous industry practices to sign their copyright over to the record
company, so most recording musicians get not a penny from record sales
or broadcast/performance royalties. Sales money mostly goes to the
record company and songwriter.

[snip]

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 23:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Gregory Weston
One of us has misunderstood the other, I think, because as far as I'm
concerned that *is* the alternative. People are able to derive income
from recorded performances precisely because they have a value not
available from live or broadcast material. I've paid my money for the
ability to hear Jethro Tull's "Seal Driver" any time I want. According
to a site that tracks their concerts, they haven't played that song live
*anywhere*, let someplace I could've had a chance to listen at least
since the year started with a '2' and I've never heard it get airplay.
That's *why* they can make money from selling recorded content.
But suppose they *couldn't* make money from it. Suppose we removed
the legally-imposed monopoly on publishing recordings.
I think you need to clarify your use of the word monopoly here, because
the term as I understand it doesn't apply.
Post by Richard Tobin
Would recorded music disappear? Would there be less of it? Would it
be of lower quality than it is now? Are we (the general public) actually
any better of because musicians and record companies can make money out
of recordings?
Considering that making the recordings requires both up-front and
ongoing commitment of resources and is likely to result in a marginal
decrease in the revenues of live performance, what incentive would they
have to make the recordings available if they *couldn't* make money from
them?

G
Richard Tobin
2007-12-12 23:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
I think you need to clarify your use of the word monopoly here, because
the term as I understand it doesn't apply.
Copyright is a monopoly on reproduction granted by the state to the
creator of a work. Without copyright law, anyone would be able to
make copies.
Post by Gregory Weston
Considering that making the recordings requires both up-front and
ongoing commitment of resources and is likely to result in a marginal
decrease in the revenues of live performance, what incentive would they
have to make the recordings available if they *couldn't* make money from
them?
Maybe they'd do it for fun? Maybe philanthropists would provide them
with resources?

-- Richard
--
:wq
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-13 03:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Gregory Weston
I think you need to clarify your use of the word monopoly here, because
the term as I understand it doesn't apply.
Copyright is a monopoly on reproduction granted by the state to the
creator of a work. Without copyright law, anyone would be able to
make copies.
Almost anyone is /able/ to do so, and up until copyright law was
introduced, they were also /permitted/ to do so.

Copyright law was originally a monopoly established to protect the
interests of Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers, a
City guild.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Company_of_Stationers_and_Newsp
aper_Makers>

`The Stationers' charter, establishing a monopoly on book production,
ensured that once a member had asserted ownership of a text (or "copy")
no other member would publish it. This is the origin of the term
"copyright".'

It originally had nothing to do with authors' rights.
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Gregory Weston
Considering that making the recordings requires both up-front and
ongoing commitment of resources and is likely to result in a marginal
decrease in the revenues of live performance, what incentive would they
have to make the recordings available if they *couldn't* make money from
them?
Maybe they'd do it for fun? Maybe philanthropists would provide them
with resources?
Maybe they'd do it the way it used to be done before copyright existed?
And who's to say that one could not make money from recordings if
copyright law were reformed - as I suggest - rather than scrapped?

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
nospamatall
2007-12-13 15:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Ceresole
Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/12/wd-makes-big-mistake
The presumption is that anything un-DRMed must be illegal.
Post by Peter Ceresole
don't have to make a living from producing content.
No-one *has* to make a living from producing content.
150 years ago no-one could make a living from selling recorded music
or movies; would it be so bad if that was true again?
150 years ago, no-one could enjoy a performance of a song or show when
and where *they* found the time. You had to wait for a performance to
happen at a time you had available in a place you could get to, then get
tickets and make the trip along with whatever other preparation was
necessary and then accept the vagaries of that specific performance.
Would it be so bad if that was true again?
Having anything you want whenever you want it is not the wonderful thing
it appears to be. Special events are special because they are, well,
special. And anyway, recordings wouldn't go away because people can't
make loads of money out of them. Musicians could still sell them, and
people would still buy them. Real artists make art because they have to,
not just to make money. Most artists work in crappy jobs to support
themselves, and still do their art regardless of the fact that they will
probably never make a living from it. The death of big business in the
art world would just mean fewer millionaire artists and fewer of the
others who would have to do a crappy job any more.

Andy
Gregory Weston
2007-12-13 16:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospamatall
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Richard Tobin
150 years ago no-one could make a living from selling recorded music
or movies; would it be so bad if that was true again?
150 years ago, no-one could enjoy a performance of a song or show when
and where *they* found the time. You had to wait for a performance to
happen at a time you had available in a place you could get to, then get
tickets and make the trip along with whatever other preparation was
necessary and then accept the vagaries of that specific performance.
Would it be so bad if that was true again?
Having anything you want whenever you want it is not the wonderful thing
it appears to be. Special events are special because they are, well,
special.
I didn't ask for special things to remain special despite becoming
commonplace, on-demand events. I asked for something that's created with
the intent of entertaining me - certainly at least some of what's
created is created with the express goal of presenting it to an audience
- to actually be made available in a form that's conducive to my
entertainment.
Post by nospamatall
And anyway, recordings wouldn't go away because people can't
make loads of money out of them.
I think there's a difference between "make loads of money" and "make a
living." The phrasing of the original post posited the unconditional
inability to earn enough to survive from recorded performances.
Post by nospamatall
Musicians could still sell them, and
people would still buy them. Real artists make art because they have to,
not just to make money. Most artists work in crappy jobs to support
themselves, and still do their art regardless of the fact that they will
probably never make a living from it.
Isn't it sad that most of them *have to* work in crappy jobs to pay the
rent and eat? Would it really be good if that "most" was changed to
"all?" I think we'd be better off as a society if there was an increased
chance that an artist could survive by being an artist.
nospamatall
2007-12-13 15:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Ceresole
Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/12/wd-makes-big-mistake
The presumption is that anything un-DRMed must be illegal.
Post by Peter Ceresole
don't have to make a living from producing content.
No-one *has* to make a living from producing content.
150 years ago no-one could make a living from selling recorded music
or movies; would it be so bad if that was true again?
I don't think it would. I think it would be a wonderful thing. Society
might actually become more like a functional, thriving, human thing
again, rather than this isolation machine. Imagine all the gigs that
would be available everywhere! Imagine being able to earn a basic living
from playing music in public, everywhere. Not having to do sessions in
clinical settings like studios, or make pathetic jingles to a deadline
for some fucking advert. Theatres would revive, actors could all get
work again.

It would be even better than before because there would be loads of
recorded music and movies made by artists just because they have to, and
it would all be available easily and cheaply. Small movie companies
would be able to get their stuff in cinemas, because the big cartel
people would have moved off into other fields where their desire for
millions of bucks has a chance of being fulfilled.

But most people are so adjusted to the cheap, crappy plastic replacement
for 'entertainment' we've been fed by the 'business' for so long they
would probably reject it now. We'd lose a bit too, like Star Wars would
probably never be made, but then again, something else would replace it.
I'd rather see a new story than the same one over and over with
different special effects.
zoara
2007-12-12 15:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Gregory Weston
The RIAA has been going after what they see as inappropriate copying for
decades, and online redistribution for nearly a decade. The current
administration has nothing to do with it. For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots. They don't listen to reason, don't live in the real world, and
don't have to make a living from producing content. They're not
creators, they're just leeches.
Maybe that applies to some. Others, I think, do live in the real world -
the one where DRM and associated efforts don't stop piracy anyway, so
they only inconvenience the legitimate consumer, and not the pirate.


-z-
--
No 3G. Fewer megapixels than an N95. Lame.
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 16:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by zoara
Maybe that applies to some. Others, I think, do live in the real world -
the one where DRM and associated efforts don't stop piracy anyway
Everybody goes on about this and of course it misses the whole point.
DRM (and enforcement) reduces the scale of piracy, compared to not
having DRM. That's all that counts.

We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
--
Peter
Stewart Smith
2007-12-12 17:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by zoara
Maybe that applies to some. Others, I think, do live in the real world -
the one where DRM and associated efforts don't stop piracy anyway
Everybody goes on about this and of course it misses the whole point.
DRM (and enforcement) reduces the scale of piracy, compared to not
having DRM. That's all that counts.
How do you KNOW this. Other than opinion there is zero evidence that
piracy would increase or decrease if DRM didn't exist. In fact, a lack
of DRM coupled with digital watermarking would probably make piracy
enforcement easier. Cracked DRM'd content is harder to trace than the
original unaltered file. Anyway, if it's so important then surely giant
record companies like EMI wouldn't be backpeddling and selling music
files on ITMS that not only don't have DRM but are higher quality as well.
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software. At the moment content creators are swindled by rights
holders out of the money they should get from digital content. Bands
get a much lower %ge of the price of a digital music file than they do
from a CD sale while the record company makes a larger %ge for doing
less work. This applies across the media and is one of the main reasons
for the present writers strike in the US. There the networks/studios
are one the one hand telling the content creators to whistle for
residuals for digital content while on the other hand whining about how
much they're losing to piracy. Many of the anti-DRM zealots you
complain about are actually content creators who are doing it for
themselves in terms of distribution and definitely not losing out from
it. The main losers, and obviously those most interested in DRM are the
old media giants, not the content creators.

Stewart
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 18:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.

If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?

I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?

You have to apply sense to this question, not barrack-room lawyering.

Saying that publishers swindle authors is totally beside the point. If
authors wish to bypass publishers, they can do so. It's just a terrible
hassle, and they risk losing money as well as making it. That's why so
many go to publishers. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM.
--
Peter
Chris Ridd
2007-12-12 18:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.
If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?
I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?
Radiohead (a popular beat combo) released their latest album as
unprotected MP3 files on a "pay what you want" basis. My understanding
is that this netted them significantly more money than they would have
received if they'd released it through a record company.

However I don't think any official figures were ever given.
Post by Peter Ceresole
You have to apply sense to this question, not barrack-room lawyering.
Saying that publishers swindle authors is totally beside the point. If
authors wish to bypass publishers, they can do so. It's just a terrible
hassle, and they risk losing money as well as making it. That's why so
many go to publishers. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM.
I think the Radiohead pseudo-figures suggest that there *is* a relationship.

Cheers,

Chris
Ian McCall
2007-12-12 18:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Ridd
Radiohead (a popular beat combo) released their latest album as
unprotected MP3 files on a "pay what you want" basis. My understanding
is that this netted them significantly more money than they would have
received if they'd released it through a record company.
I paid zero for that, it must be said. But in my defence - after the
last couple of albums I figure they owe -me- money...

Actually I wasn't going to download it at all, free or not, but was
more or less pushed to it by someone asking me to give it a try. I'm
still happy with my figure of zero.

Cheers,
Ian
Jim
2007-12-12 21:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.
If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?
I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?
Then how did Microsoft sell so many copies of DOS, not to mention
Windows prior to 95 without copy protection? Don't tell me they
didn't. Look at the financial statements they made as a publicly
traded company and the product sale line items.

There are others in business too. ;-)
Post by Peter Ceresole
You have to apply sense to this question, not barrack-room lawyering.
Saying that publishers swindle authors is totally beside the point. If
authors wish to bypass publishers, they can do so. It's just a terrible
hassle, and they risk losing money as well as making it. That's why so
many go to publishers. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM.
--
Edo ergo sum
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 21:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.
If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?
I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?
Then how did Microsoft sell so many copies of DOS, not to mention
Windows prior to 95 without copy protection?
Bundling.

G
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 23:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.
If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?
The proportion that is paid for at the moment - exactly that proportion.

The music biz is doing well, so I'd say there's no problem with not
preventing law abiding people exercising their consumer rights with
respect to property that they have purchased legally.
Post by Peter Ceresole
I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?
I certainly do: the content is out there, free to copy simply, with the
copies being equal in quality to the originals. That is the world we
have.

And people buy the music.

So I think that given that the situation you describe is the one that we
have now, then we'd have the sales of music that we've got now if that
situation were the case.

You're talking about the world we live in - it works not too badly.
There is simply no need for copy prevention consumer rights denial
technology to be layered on to copyrighted stuff.
Post by Peter Ceresole
You have to apply sense to this question, not barrack-room lawyering.
Indeed - let's apply some sense and look at reality, shall we?

[snip]

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
nospamatall
2007-12-13 15:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Stewart Smith
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
What does that have to do with DRM? It doesn't help creators to be
rewarded for their work, unless we're talking about the creators of the
DRM software.
Now you're being deliberately dense. At least, I assume it's deliberate.
He did explain below but you snipped it.
Post by Peter Ceresole
If content was out there, free to copy simply, with the copies being
equal in quality to the originals, what proportion do you suppose would
be properly paid for?
I can't hazard an actual figure, nobody can, but it would certainly be a
fairly small proportion. Or do you think different?
What is the proportion of that sold in iTumes and elsewhere? It's
significant. And most of the p2p would never have been bought anyway,
it's more like radio, most of it gets deleted eventually to make room
for more.
Post by Peter Ceresole
You have to apply sense to this question, not barrack-room lawyering.
Saying that publishers swindle authors is totally beside the point. If
authors wish to bypass publishers, they can do so. It's just a terrible
hassle, and they risk losing money as well as making it. That's why so
many go to publishers. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with DRM.
It's a hassle because the big publishers have a big voice and it is hard
to get any exposure without them. They abuse this position, it's the
only advantage they have.
zoara
2007-12-12 21:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by zoara
Maybe that applies to some. Others, I think, do live in the real world -
the one where DRM and associated efforts don't stop piracy anyway
Everybody goes on about this and of course it misses the whole point.
DRM (and enforcement) reduces the scale of piracy, compared to not
having DRM.
Ha.
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
None whatsoever. It's just that DRM doesn't achieve this.

-z-
--
No 3G. Fewer megapixels than an N95. Lame.
nospamatall
2007-12-13 17:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by zoara
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
None whatsoever. It's just that DRM doesn't achieve this.
nor is it meant to. Its purpose is to increase income from sales to
honest people.
nospamatall
2007-12-13 17:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
People who refer to their work as 'content' deserve the same level of
respect as they themselves afford it.

Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by zoara
Maybe that applies to some. Others, I think, do live in the real world -
the one where DRM and associated efforts don't stop piracy anyway
Everybody goes on about this and of course it misses the whole point.
DRM (and enforcement) reduces the scale of piracy,
DRM is copy prevention and consumer rights denial technology: don't call
it DRM. Piracy is a very serious crime; domestic breaches of copyright
law are a civil matter, so stop it with all this dishonesty.
Post by Peter Ceresole
compared to not
having DRM. That's all that counts.
But it does not.

The Far East has many DVD factories churning out DVDs of copyright
material without bothering to pay the copyright holders - despite the
fact that the copy prevention rights denial tech built into DVDs does in
fact work as advertised.

And that's the troublesome profit-hitting copyright breaking - copy
prevention rights denial technolgy has proven utterly ineffective at
doing anything but annoying consumers and denying some of them their
legal rights, not to mention defrauding plenty of people who buy what
they are told are CDs and then turn out to be non-CD music discs with
copy prevention rights denial technology built into them.
Post by Peter Ceresole
We're not talking about theology here, not looking for absolutes. Just
trying to make it possible for content creators to be rewarded for their
work. Your objection to that would be what?
No objection at all: but content creators are generally not properly
rewarded for their work. Take a look at your music collection: it's all
copyright `the record firm', pretty much, isn't it?

That's why we have so-called DRM that denies consumers their rights:
it's not to protect the content creators, but to defend the profits of
the big businesses which have used their market dominance to enforce
unfair contracts on the content creators so that the creators get ripped
off.

That is why I am opposed to the current state of copyright and patent
law: the people that copyright and patents were meant to protect are not
in fact protected by these laws, which have all been subverted by big
business to the detriment of the content creators.

I say we need copyright and patent law reform so that we can have just
laws to permit content creators to be properly compensated for their
work - as they currently are not.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Arthur
2007-12-12 15:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots. They don't listen to reason, don't live in the real world, and
don't have to make a living from producing content. They're not
creators, they're just leeches.
In the real world I occasionally miss an episode of a TV series I'm
following. When this happens I would pay a small amount to be able to
download and watch those episodes on my TV.

Because of content producers choice of DRM and my choice of OS this
option is not available to me and my money is not available to them.

Arthur
Peter Ceresole
2007-12-12 16:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur
Because of content producers choice of DRM and my choice of OS this
option is not available to me and my money is not available to them.
1) It soon will be.

2) The small reach of your (my) system means that the amounts lost are
trivially small, for the producer. But without DRM it would be
catastrophic.
--
Peter
Jim
2007-12-12 21:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Arthur
Because of content producers choice of DRM and my choice of OS this
option is not available to me and my money is not available to them.
1) It soon will be.
2) The small reach of your (my) system means that the amounts lost are
trivially small, for the producer. But without DRM it would be
catastrophic.
No it wouldn't. People made money before DRM. Maybe not as much
as the greedy bastards thought they should. But they made money.
--
Edo ergo sum
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Arthur
Because of content producers choice of DRM and my choice of OS this
option is not available to me and my money is not available to them.
1) It soon will be.
2) The small reach of your (my) system means that the amounts lost are
trivially small, for the producer. But without DRM it would be
catastrophic.
But you have no evidence for that at all.

Let's look at some facts that can be verified.

It's a historical fact that MS got a large installed base of Windoze 3
because - and MS has admitted that this is a tactic that it still uses -
the early versions had weak controls and was very easy to rip off. This
was a deliberate tactic - permitting people to use illicit copies - to
get a large installed base, get people used to the software, so then
they don't want to change, and the *NEXT* version has tighter controls,
so people have to buy and they will buy because they've got used to what
turns out to have been effectively a free trial version they've been
given to use to sucker them in.

So you see that companies use the fact that people break copyright to
gain an advantage - proof that a lack of copy-prevention consumer right
denial technology (what you mis-name DRM) is not necessarily a bad
thing.

Morever, the copy prevention and rights denial technology that has been
put into music discs is ineffective: it does nothing to prevent the
music being put up for downloading, but does mess up the playback
abilites of those with the wrong sort of CD player, or those who use
Windoze PCs to play CDs and don't know how to work around the consumer
rights denial technology in the music disc they've just been conned into
spending money on (conned, because they thought they were buying a CD,
but they get it home and find that it's not a CD but a non-standard
music disc and that it won't play in their computer).

EMI has recently dropping copy prevention technology all together, after
having been one of its staunchest supporters.

It seems that the music business disagrees with you as to the need for
copy prevention consumer rights denial technology.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
nospamatall
2007-12-13 15:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
2) The small reach of your (my) system means that the amounts lost are
trivially small, for the producer. But without DRM it would be
catastrophic.
Yes, that is the whole thing. The drm in this and other ways says the
producer doesn't care about me. So why should I care about the producer?
The producer demands that I _pay_ for hardware and software added to my
devices for his benefit, not mine, regardless of whether I am going to
use his product or not. They are also asking for a levy on iPods, have
one on zunes and even blank CDs in some places. They take away my
ability to fast forward through things I dont want to watch, and
restrict what devices I can watch/listen on.

Are you seriously suggesting I should not regard these things as the
action of an enemy, not a friend? Why should I respect their rights if
they don't respect mine?

Andy
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Ceresole
Post by Gregory Weston
The RIAA has been going after what they see as inappropriate copying for
decades, and online redistribution for nearly a decade. The current
administration has nothing to do with it. For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
There's no point in arguing. The anti-DRM lobby are either greedy, or
zealots.
Don't be daft. DRM is a misnomer to begin with; it's actually consumer
rights /denial/ technology that also fails to achieve the aim of those
selling it.

It seems to me that it's the copy-prevention lobby that's a bunch of
greedy zealots.
Post by Peter Ceresole
They don't listen to reason, don't live in the real world, and
don't have to make a living from producing content. They're not
creators, they're just leeches.
Well, that's not actually true, is it? Rather a lot of those people in
favour of not messing people about with copy prevention controls are in
fact making their living producing content. You'll not see any
so-called `DRM' applied to Woodworm Records products, for example - and
you'll also find that the artists concerned in that case are usually
quite happy to have copies made of their music so that others can listen
to it - they know how it works. These people who hear the copies
usually end up spending money of their own on the original recordings.

Ditto, for example, Roy Harper's Science Frictoin label: no copy
prevention technology there either.

In fact, the only music labels I've ever heard of that put copy
prevention rights denial stuff on their music output are those which
take the copyright away from the recording artists. In other words, DRM
rights denial tech is only used when the recording artists have no
copyright over the work.

In those cases where the recording artist retains copyright over the
work, there is no DRM rights denial technology imposed upon the
consumer.

Which I think neatly disposes of your claims: this DRM rights denial
technology is used only because the big record firms that rip off the
musicians are greedy zealots who want to continue to rip off the
musicians and the consumers. An end needs to be put to it.
Post by Peter Ceresole
Anybody who *wants* to put their material out there free of copy
protection is free to do so. Many do. They have their reasons. But for
others, it's their living at stake.
But that's the big lie put out by the record firms, isn't it?
Post by Peter Ceresole
It doesn't mean the RIAA are always right, but without some effort of
that kind there'd be no content worth downloading, at all.
Hardly - the copy prevention and consumer rights denial technology that
we are being told to swallow under the propaganda name `DRM' is in fact
ineffective. It does nothing at all to prevent those who are interested
in making copies from doing so if they really want to - frankly, all you
need is a Mac or a Linux box and almost all music copy-prevention
technology when applied to non-CD music discs turns out to be
ineffective.

The pro DRM people are just greedy zealots who ignore reality if you ask
me.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 12:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
And I object strongly to the heavy-handed actions of the RIAA in suing
people who download music for personal use - go after the sources, for
heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
I could, but I can't be bothered. Try searching The Register's
archives; it's where I've read about most of the bullying the RIAA has
be up to. Have some entertainment first, though:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/>
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
and targeting domestic uploaders is silly.
And yet it's the crux of actually protecting IP.
But what is this IP you refer to? It's a weasel term, is IP. You see,
copyright isn't property: it's a set of time-limited rights that are
given to a creator on creation of a work that are designed to protect
the creator and encourage the creator by ensuring that the creator gets
properly rewarded.

Now, that's what copyright's for - but how is it actually used by, let's
say, the music business? Well, the way the music business works is that
in the case of all large record firms, if you're a musician and you want
a recording contract, you have to sign over your copyright on your music
recordings to the music firm.

Straight away, we can see that copyright has been subverted by big
business and is no longer doing what it should be doing.

So I'd say that the copyrights of the creators are not being dealt with
fairly - they need their `intellectual property' (so-called) protected,
but they don't have any such protection from copyright because of the
unfair contractual terms that the music business cartel forces on them.

This needs to be dealt with one way or another.
Post by Gregory Weston
You're defending
yourself from people who've assumed the role of distributors without the
right to do so.
Yep - I think I mentioned I'm in favour of peaceful civil disobedience
to deal with the problem that copyright has been corrupted by big
business. The law is flawed and needs to be changed so that the
creators' rights are properly protected as they currently are not.
Post by Gregory Weston
The fact that the RIAA is a bunch of greedy, slimy
idiots doesn't mean that everything they do or say is automatically
incorrect from a legal standpoint. Just most of it.
The point in this case is that the law is unjust and needs to be
changed.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
There are far too many of them
for it to be possible to make a difference that way unless you really
want to live in a police state (such as Dubya seems to be trying to
create in the USA, except he seems to want daddy's old firm, the CIA, in
charge. Get rid of Dubya! Make the USA sane again!).
The RIAA has been going after what they see as inappropriate copying for
decades, and online redistribution for nearly a decade.
Indeed - but its current methods have been shown to target entirely
innocent victims, and to cause them to suffer enormous expense. It's
doing nothing to stop the problem and it is pissing off a lot of people
and causing entirely innocent Americans to suffer horribly. Thankfully,
the RIAA doesn't go after people outside the USA as far as I'm aware.
Post by Gregory Weston
The current
administration has nothing to do with it.
The current administration has chosen seriously flawed, deeply
antisocial tactics - that's what they've got to do with it.
Post by Gregory Weston
For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
Don't use that weasel term `IP law'. Copyright is a set of rights for a
limited time granted to a creator of a work. Patents are grouped into
`IP law' as well - that's a different set of rights for a limited time
that has to be purchased at high price, and so is a protection that is
effectively only available to commercial enterprises. Do bear in mind
that any large company has the lawyers to crush anyone smaller in a
patent dispute.

(and never mind the fact that the US patent system is a complete
nonsense and always has been - the US patent system seems to be there to
give the firm with the most vicious lawyers the rights to do what the
hell it likes, as far as I can tell. But that might be overly cynical
of me.)

Patents don't work any more, and copyright doesn't work any more. The
two main pillars of this dishonestly named `intellectual property' lark
are rubbish.

So I say that we need to have civil disobedience to force the
legislators to fix the problems - so that we return to a situation where
inventors can get protection for their ideas, and creators can get
protection for their works too.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
The source has to be blocked off some other way. Personally, I don't
understand all this messing around with copy prevention rubbish (they
call it `DRM', but they mean copy prevention).
Yes. Because the right to copy is pretty much paramount in this arena.
It's more that the ability to copy is what's important - the /right/ to
copy is something that people have been ignoring since the day they
invented copyright.

People will object if they find they can't copy the music they've
bought, and they won't buy uncopyable music. Copy protection technology
as applied does not in fact prevent anyone except a few Windoze users
without the wit to search the 'net from making copies. All it does is
cost the record firms money, and make money for the charlatans who sell
the tech - as well as mess up listening for a few people who have CD
players that can't handle the copy protection, and for the rather larger
number of people who find they can't play it on their PC which is all
they have for playing CDs.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
The sensible thing to do
is to watermark all copyright works with a unique watermark on each work
- so if you find a copy out there, you can trace it back to the source.
That'd help 'em get to the bottom of the serious problems.
That would pretty much require the end of physical distribution and not
be reliable.
I don't see why either should be the case.
Post by Gregory Weston
It's also fairly close to how modern DRM works for
electronic distribution,
It's copy protection, not rights management technology - don't use the
big business weasel term for it. DRM is a lie as a term because it does
nothing to permit me to exercise my rights - all it does is attempt to
deny me my rights as the owner of a copy of a copyright work.
Post by Gregory Weston
but you just got through railing against that.
Then again, you also said they should go after the sources, but now are
fussy about which sources they go after and how. You should pick a
position and stick with it.
But what's the source? The source of troublesome profit-hurting
copyright infringement is the DVD and CD factories in the Far East that
just churn out copyright material without bothering with the formalities
of paying the copyright owner.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
But ordinary people at home? Let 'em be - they're not the problem.
Home Taping Is Killing Music is what they told us in the early 1980s.
You're off by quite a bit.
No I'm not.
Post by Gregory Weston
The industry was going after home recording
as a practice (not necessarily individual practitioners) long before
that.
Not a *LONG* time before that, because the practice was not commonplace
until cassette tape was commonplace, and that wasn't until some time in
the early to mid 1970s, at a guess (I'm guessing based on specific
technology introduction dates I've just looked up).

But the fact that as you point out they were talking about home taping
killling music before the early 80s has nothing to do with the fact that
they were telling that to us in the early 1980s as well. I mentioned
the 1980s because it struck me that I've seen `Home taping is killing
music' on album inner sleeves of that era (one particular Iron Maiden
album springs to mind), but I've never seen it on a 1970s album
anywhere.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 13:10:19 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
And I object strongly to the heavy-handed actions of the RIAA in suing
people who download music for personal use - go after the sources, for
heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
I could, but I can't be bothered.
Translation: You can't.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Try searching The Register's
archives; it's where I've read about most of the bullying the RIAA has
be up to.
Sorry; I've been following the RIAAs antics fairly closely since the
advent of the CD, and very closely indeed since Shawn Fanning was
singled out as the weakest link in a chain of activity they didn't like.
Has. Not. Happened.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
and targeting domestic uploaders is silly.
And yet it's the crux of actually protecting IP.
But what is this IP you refer to? It's a weasel term, is IP.
No, but it's become clear that you don't really understand what you're
talking about.
True, it's not. But noone said it was. It's rights, related to property.
It says "I expended resources to create a work or to acquire a created
work, and for some amount of time I get to say how that something is
made available to others."
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
The current
administration has nothing to do with it.
The current administration has chosen seriously flawed, deeply
antisocial tactics - that's what they've got to do with it.
Um. Tactics to achieve *what*? If anything, the RIAA playbook has gotten
less ham-handed since GWB took office. It's just a coincidence of timing.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
Don't use that weasel term `IP law'.
Translation: You're entirely unwilling to discuss the practical matter
of current law.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Copyright is a set of rights for a
limited time granted to a creator of a work. Patents are grouped into
`IP law' as well - that's a different set of rights for a limited time
that has to be purchased at high price, and so is a protection that is
effectively only available to commercial enterprises. Do bear in mind
that any large company has the lawyers to crush anyone smaller in a
patent dispute.
Oh good. You've switched topics. Good bye. I'm not even going to bother
reading the rest of the post; it's obvious you lack either the will or
ability - and which of those it is really doesn't matter - to debate in
good faith.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
And I object strongly to the heavy-handed actions of the RIAA in
suing people who download music for personal use - go after the
sources, for heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the
RIAA has not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P
networks; only for making it available.
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
I could, but I can't be bothered.
Translation: You can't.
Bollocks I can't. First search hit:

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/copyrights_and_wrongs/>

The offences in this case were, as you can see, utterly trivial. And
yes, okay, she was done for `making available' - but also for
`downloading'.

So I'm right, aren't I?

Now, I actually had a different story in mind when I said I couldn't be
bothered. The big problem is that it's bloody hard to find what you're
searching for on El Reg - but that first hit will do to make my point, I
reckon.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Try searching The Register's
archives; it's where I've read about most of the bullying the RIAA has
be up to.
Sorry; I've been following the RIAAs antics fairly closely since the
advent of the CD, and very closely indeed since Shawn Fanning was
singled out as the weakest link in a chain of activity they didn't like.
Has. Not. Happened.
It. Has. Happened. See. Above.

Typing. Like. This. To. Emulate. Speaking. Slowly. As. If. To.
An. Idiot. Is. Annnoying.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
and targeting domestic uploaders is silly.
And yet it's the crux of actually protecting IP.
But what is this IP you refer to? It's a weasel term, is IP.
No, but it's become clear that you don't really understand what you're
talking about.
I think you'll find that your problem is that you've failed to
understand me - seems clear to me that you don't really want to
understand the points I'm making, but instead just want to argue against
your ideas about what you'd like me to be saying rather than what I am
in fact saying.

It's a shame your so irrational, but there you go.
Post by Gregory Weston
True, it's not. But noone said it was.
By referring to copyright as intellectual property, that is in fact what
you did do. So I have to say: `You have in fact claimed that copyright
is property' and your claim otherwise is a blatent untruth.
Post by Gregory Weston
It's rights, related to property.
But it's not related to property. What property? An idea is not
property, and what's `IP' about if not ideas, put down on paper or other
permanent storage? The term IP is, as I say, a lie - and your claim
that it relates to property is another lie.

And you claim that I am trying to avoid an honest debate - what about
*YOUR* barrage of lies?
Post by Gregory Weston
It says "I expended resources to create a work or to acquire a created
work, and for some amount of time I get to say how that something is
made available to others."
Indeed - and the way it works is that if you are (say) a recording
musician, the only say you have is that you have to give all your rights
to the firm that sells your recordings.

Surely you can see that is unjust and against the interests of the
creator?
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
The current
administration has nothing to do with it.
The current administration has chosen seriously flawed, deeply
antisocial tactics - that's what they've got to do with it.
Um. Tactics to achieve *what*? If anything, the RIAA playbook has gotten
less ham-handed since GWB took office.
Wha? GWB? You mean Dubya, the half-witted tit in charge of the USA at
the moment? He doesn't run the RIAA, does he? Oh god that might
explain a lot...
Post by Gregory Weston
It's just a coincidence of timing.
Are you mad, or what? The administration of the RIAA has decided on its
current tactics - who else? It's not a co-incidence. It's what they
decided to do because they decided to do it - it was them wot dun it.

I get the idea that you use `administration' to mean `government of the
USA'. I was talking about something else - using the word properly, you
might say, rather than in the geographically limited sense you used it
in. Not being a USAian, you see, I don't talk about `administration'
when I want to refer to my government - I'm a lot less polite, for
starters.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
For good or ill, the law says
*they* have the right (with limited exceptions) to dictate the time and
terms under which the content is copied. When others assume those
rights, IP law says they can go after them and securities law virtually
demands they must.
Don't use that weasel term `IP law'.
Translation: You're entirely unwilling to discuss the practical matter
of current law.
Corrected translation: I want to discuss the practical matters of
current law and in fact did so, and I wanted to have that discussion on
an honest basis, not the dishonest basis you have been trying to work
with. So I eliminated the dishonest term `IP law' - it's a weasel term
- and started to consider the two main pillars of so-called `IP law'
separately, since you raised the subject of both copyrights and patents
but wanted to deal with them together and to pretend that these limited
rights counted as property - which they do not.

You seem to want to ignore the realities of the state of the law and
push some sort of dishonest big-business propaganda line.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Copyright is a set of rights for a
limited time granted to a creator of a work. Patents are grouped into
`IP law' as well - that's a different set of rights for a limited time
that has to be purchased at high price, and so is a protection that is
effectively only available to commercial enterprises. Do bear in mind
that any large company has the lawyers to crush anyone smaller in a
patent dispute.
Oh good. You've switched topics.
No I've not: you brought up the topic of IP law, so I stuck with IP law.
You seem to want to ignore the reality of the situation and push lies.
Post by Gregory Weston
Good bye. I'm not even going to bother
reading the rest of the post; it's obvious you lack either the will or
ability - and which of those it is really doesn't matter - to debate in
good faith.
Well, I was trying to have a debate in good faith. it's a shame you
won't engage in such debate yourself, insisting on your lies and
ignoring the reality of the current state of the law and refusing to
engage in a realistic discussion of how the two main pillars of what you
term `IP law' actually operate in the real world.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 23:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
I could, but I can't be bothered.
Translation: You can't.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/copyrights_and_wrongs/>
The offences in this case were, as you can see, utterly trivial. And
yes, okay, she was done for `making available' - but also for
`downloading'.
So I'm right, aren't I?
No. You're wrong. It might help if you had gotten a better-researched
article. If that's the quality of news you're using, it's no wonder
you're confused.

She was sued for unauthorized distribution. The jury actually went
beyond what they were required to do, largely because her actions made
obvious that she knew what she was doing was wrong and tried to obscure
her violations.

(An example of the credibility issue that article has:)

"That's right - almost all emails are copyrighted."

Almost? Actually, in the US it's *all*. No "almost" about it. Same for
every other composed work. Copyright exists, immediately and
automatically.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Now, I actually had a different story in mind when I said I couldn't be
bothered. The big problem is that it's bloody hard to find what you're
searching for on El Reg - but that first hit will do to make my point, I
reckon.
As luck would have it, no. Pity so much of your post is founded on that
error.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
True, it's not. But noone said it was.
By referring to copyright as intellectual property,
But I didn't do that ...
Post by Rowland McDonnell
that is in fact what you did do.
... so I didn't do that either. You're welcome to cite the post where
you think I did. Perhaps you'll have better luck than you did with Ms.
Thomas' case.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It's rights, related to property.
But it's not related to property. What property? An idea is not
property, and what's `IP' about if not ideas, put down on paper or other
permanent storage? The term IP is, as I say, a lie - and your claim
that it relates to property is another lie.
<http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/>

International law recognizes ideas as property.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
And you claim that I am trying to avoid an honest debate - what about
*YOUR* barrage of lies?
In your world, zero counts as a barrage? Fascinating place. I should
like to visit sometime.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It says "I expended resources to create a work or to acquire a created
work, and for some amount of time I get to say how that something is
made available to others."
Indeed - and the way it works is that if you are (say) a recording
musician, the only say you have is that you have to give all your rights
to the firm that sells your recordings.
Surely you can see that is unjust and against the interests of the
creator?
Yes. And also irrelevant to the discussion.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
The current
administration has nothing to do with it.
The current administration has chosen seriously flawed, deeply
antisocial tactics - that's what they've got to do with it.
Um. Tactics to achieve *what*? If anything, the RIAA playbook has gotten
less ham-handed since GWB took office.
Wha? GWB? You mean Dubya, the half-witted tit in charge of the USA at
the moment? He doesn't run the RIAA, does he? Oh god that might
explain a lot...
You're the one who's been trying to draw some sort of connection.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It's just a coincidence of timing.
Are you mad, or what? The administration of the RIAA has decided on its
current tactics - who else?
What? ... (Looking back through posts...) You've obviously gone off your
meds. This is yet another situation where you've completely abandoned
something you said previously and acted befuddled at the response your
nonsense elicited.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I get the idea that you use `administration' to mean `government of the
USA'. I was talking about something else
And yet just before that you had, in fact, been talking about the
federal government. Right....
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Good bye. I'm not even going to bother
reading the rest of the post; it's obvious you lack either the will or
ability - and which of those it is really doesn't matter - to debate in
good faith.
Well, I was trying to have a debate in good faith.
In a word: Bullshit. You've been twisting and gyrating through this
whole thread, summarily dismissing as invalid any fact inconvenient to
your position, redefining established terms, relying on bizarre
interpretations of what's been said to you, and changing topics and
arguments at will.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-13 03:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I've heard of plenty of cases where they've gone for downloaders,
So you can point us to an article about one?
I could, but I can't be bothered.
Translation: You can't.
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/12/copyrights_and_wrongs/>
The offences in this case were, as you can see, utterly trivial. And
yes, okay, she was done for `making available' - but also for
`downloading'.
So I'm right, aren't I?
No. You're wrong. It might help if you had gotten a better-researched
article. If that's the quality of news you're using, it's no wonder
you're confused.
As I explained elsewhere - and you chose to ignore, to develop a bad
faith argument against me - that isn't the article I was thinking of
citing, but I can't find the bloody thing that I recall reading on El
Reg. Its archive search is frankly crap.
Post by Gregory Weston
She was sued for unauthorized distribution. The jury actually went
beyond what they were required to do, largely because her actions made
obvious that she knew what she was doing was wrong and tried to obscure
her violations.
That's not how I read it.
Post by Gregory Weston
(An example of the credibility issue that article has:)
"That's right - almost all emails are copyrighted."
Almost? Actually, in the US it's *all*. No "almost" about it. Same for
every other composed work. Copyright exists, immediately and
automatically.
Oh yes, but that does not apply to *ALL* emails, everywhere. You see,
96% of the world's population is outside the USA and US laws only apply
to tiny fraction - 4% - of the world's population. Okay, UK laws about
copyright assignation are rather similar (after all, copyright is an
English invention, and the USA got rather a lot of its basic laws
originally from English and Welsh law; Scottish law is different).

No wonder you're confused - failing to remember that there's a lot more
to the world than the USA. Admittedly, the article was about events
inside the USA, but that's not really the point: the article made the
general point that almost all emails (generally, not just in the USA)
are copyrighted.

You have also failed to recall that the law permits the creator of a
work to assign the copyright to anyone else, or even the `public domain'
- i.e., thrown away the copyright.

So while a work is copyrighted as soon as it's put into permanent form -
i.e., once you save your email (or send it to someone else for that
matter) - one is permitted to basically just throw away your copyright
before sending.

Some people do that - and its your failure to understand the diversity
of human motivation and your failure to understand the law that's the
problem here.

I expect there are other bobbles that an expert could tell you about.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Now, I actually had a different story in mind when I said I couldn't be
bothered. The big problem is that it's bloody hard to find what you're
searching for on El Reg - but that first hit will do to make my point, I
reckon.
As luck would have it, no. Pity so much of your post is founded on that
error.
I don't see it as such. You've certainly done nothing to convince me.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
True, it's not. But noone said it was.
By referring to copyright as intellectual property,
But I didn't do that ...
Seems to me that you did.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
that is in fact what you did do.
... so I didn't do that either. You're welcome to cite the post where
you think I did. Perhaps you'll have better luck than you did with Ms.
Thomas' case.
Job done, took about two minutes all in:

In Message-ID: <uce-***@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
I said, and then you replied:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
and targeting domestic uploaders is silly.
And yet it's the crux of actually protecting IP.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So: we are talking about copyright issues, and you said that targetting
the sources of the copyright breach is the crux of protecting IP - in
other words, you were implicitly defining copyright as IP.

Again, you're wrong and I'm right.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It's rights, related to property.
But it's not related to property. What property? An idea is not
property, and what's `IP' about if not ideas, put down on paper or other
permanent storage? The term IP is, as I say, a lie - and your claim
that it relates to property is another lie.
<http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/>
International law recognizes ideas as property.
Well, so says the organisation that calls itself the world intellectual
property organisation.

That's one of the things I'm arguing against, since that organisation
is, rather like the WTO, set up to promote and defend established
interests such as big business and governments.

It's every bit as unjust as the WTO.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
And you claim that I am trying to avoid an honest debate - what about
*YOUR* barrage of lies?
In your world, zero counts as a barrage?
Erm, nope - all your false allegations add up to a great deal more than
`zero'.
Post by Gregory Weston
Fascinating place. I should
like to visit sometime.
<shrug> I'm not sure how you make a non-zero number into zero myself.
That's not part of the maths I learnt at school.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It says "I expended resources to create a work or to acquire a created
work, and for some amount of time I get to say how that something is
made available to others."
Indeed - and the way it works is that if you are (say) a recording
musician, the only say you have is that you have to give all your rights
to the firm that sells your recordings.
Surely you can see that is unjust and against the interests of the
creator?
Yes. And also irrelevant to the discussion.
Not as far as I'm concerned.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
The current
administration has nothing to do with it.
The current administration has chosen seriously flawed, deeply
antisocial tactics - that's what they've got to do with it.
Um. Tactics to achieve *what*? If anything, the RIAA playbook has gotten
less ham-handed since GWB took office.
Wha? GWB? You mean Dubya, the half-witted tit in charge of the USA at
the moment? He doesn't run the RIAA, does he? Oh god that might
explain a lot...
You're the one who's been trying to draw some sort of connection.
Erm, nope, sorry, that's an error of comprehension on your part.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
It's just a coincidence of timing.
Are you mad, or what? The administration of the RIAA has decided on its
current tactics - who else?
What? ... (Looking back through posts...) You've obviously gone off your
meds.
I might well be mad, but I take no drugs for the problems. I think you
probably need to sit down with a mug of cocoa and try to sort out your
own mental confusion.
Post by Gregory Weston
This is yet another situation where you've completely abandoned
something you said previously and acted befuddled at the response your
nonsense elicited.
No, this is another situation where you have misinterpreted what I meant
in several different ways. It's your inability to comprehend my meaning
that leads you to such conclusions - and you really do seem to have my
posts mixed up with someone else's.

Do please quote me any sections where you think I've been contradicting
myself - if you can do so - and I'll help you understand what I meant.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I get the idea that you use `administration' to mean `government of the
USA'. I was talking about something else
And yet just before that you had, in fact, been talking about the
federal government. Right....
Care to quote the passage which confused you? If you were to do that, I
could show you how you made your mistake in understanding me.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Gregory Weston
Good bye. I'm not even going to bother
reading the rest of the post; it's obvious you lack either the will or
ability - and which of those it is really doesn't matter - to debate in
good faith.
Well, I was trying to have a debate in good faith.
In a word: Bullshit.
<sigh> No, it's just that you keep twisting my words to misinterpret
them, taking them out of context, ignoring large chunks of what I have
to say, confusing me with someone else, and generally not behaving in a
reasonable and rational fashion.
Post by Gregory Weston
You've been twisting and gyrating through this
whole thread, summarily dismissing as invalid any fact inconvenient to
your position,
Seems to me that's what you've done rather than me - for example, you
responded to a relevant point I made in good faith above with the single
dismissive line:

`Yes. And also irrelevant to the discussion.'

No justification for your judgement - you just discarded my point as
irrelevant. Seems to me that you're just accusing me of the faults that
you suffer from yourself. Now, while I can back up my claims about your
misbehaviour in this discussion, I note that all your complaints about
me are backed up by nothing but your assertions.

So who's acting in bad faith here? Who's twisting and gyrating and
evading and arguing dishonestly? Seems to me that the evidence is
clear: I'm being honest, and you're not.
Post by Gregory Weston
redefining established terms,
<cough> I think you'll find that I'm being careful to specify what
established terms mean, rather than re-defining them. We have a big
problem today with creeping newspeak in the language, and I'm working
against it.

You, on the other hand, are on the side of those who wish to ruin
rationality by using newspeak. Just read Orwell's `1984' for more
details on how it works.

Now, by making an effort to nail down the semantics I am acting in good
faith to try to ensure that we achieve good and reliable communication.
You seem to not to want to have agreed defintions for the words we are
using, which seems to indicate to me that you are not honestly wanting
to have a valid discussion.
Post by Gregory Weston
relying on bizarre
interpretations of what's been said to you,
Care to cite any examples? I thought not.
Post by Gregory Weston
and changing topics and
arguments at will.
I think the problem is more that you have badly misinterpreted rather a
lot of what I've said, not to mention ignoring rather a lot of the rest
of it too.

It's impossible to have a discussion in good faith with someone like
you, I reckon. Doesn't mean I'm not trying. But you just won't have
it, will you? Nope - you've got to invent all sorts of complaints about
me and criticise me personally (despite presenting no evidence for your
claims) rather than attempt to address the main points I'm trying to
make. Dishonest of you, but there you go.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
2007-12-12 18:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
In article
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by Jeffrey Goldberg
Post by Rowland McDonnell
I suppose I ought to point out that making an unauthorised copy of
copyright material - what software sellers dishonestly call `piracy' -
is not the crime of theft
Thank you. I was tempted to point out the same thing. And I loath those
"downloading is theft" or "buying pirated movies is stealing" ads I see
on the DVDs I rent. I believe that the MPAA is hurting its case with
those ads.
They're certainly pissing me off. I object when I am forced to watch a
nasty threatening notice warning me not to `steal' copyright material
when I've just sat down to view a DVD I've just damned well purchased
entirely legitimately. And I object strongly to the heavy-handed
actions of the RIAA in suing people who download music for personal use
- go after the sources, for heavens' sake!
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
Your recollection is probably faulty:

<http://www.thehoya.com/news/012304/news8.cfm>
<http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=292>
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm>
<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ripped/riaa-argues-songs-ripped-to-your-comp
uter-for-personal-use-are-unauthorized-copies-332550.php>
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 21:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
<http://www.thehoya.com/news/012304/news8.cfm>
Broken link. They're apparently upgrading their server right now.
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=292>
"The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the
Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service."
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm>
No details. As close as it gets to details indicates that the students
involved were redistributing.
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ripped/riaa-argues-songs-ripped-to-your-comp
uter-for-personal-use-are-unauthorized-copies-332550.php>
In the actual suit: "... the couple's being sued for sharing songs over
KaZaA ... "

The RIAA's decades-old assertion that the license is to the combination
of content and media rather than content alone was a side issue,
specifically noted as supplemental.

So you're 0 for 3 with one to-be-determined. My recollection is
vindicated so far.
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
2007-12-12 22:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
<http://www.thehoya.com/news/012304/news8.cfm>
Broken link. They're apparently upgrading their server right now.
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=292>
"The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the
Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service."
That quote was not on that page at all.

"Brianna's family, who lives in a city housing project in NYC's Upper
West Side, thought that because they had paid a $29.99 Kazaa activation
fee, they were entitled to download such music."

and

http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=291&ipod-accessories&ipod

"Briana thought that there was nothing wrong with downloading music from
the sharing networks since her mom paid for service that made the
downloads possible. "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning.""
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm>
No details. As close as it gets to details indicates that the students
involved were redistributing.
Ho ho ho wishful thinking on your part.
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ripped/riaa-argues-songs-ripped-to-your-comp
uter-for-personal-use-are-unauthorized-copies-332550.php>
In the actual suit: "... the couple's being sued for sharing songs over
KaZaA ... "
The RIAA's decades-old assertion that the license is to the combination
of content and media rather than content alone was a side issue,
specifically noted as supplemental.
Read the case again, the RIAA was claiming that MP3s from legally owned
CDs were illegal infringements irrespective of whether they are shared
or not.
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're 0 for 3 with one to-be-determined. My recollection is
vindicated so far.
Utter shite.
Gregory Weston
2007-12-12 23:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
That's what they're doing. To the best of my recollection, the RIAA has
not yet gone after anyone for taking content from P2P networks; only for
making it available.
<http://www.thehoya.com/news/012304/news8.cfm>
Broken link. They're apparently upgrading their server right now.
Still down, FWIW.
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=292>
"The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the
Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service."
That quote was not on that page at all.
"Brianna's family, who lives in a city housing project in NYC's Upper
West Side, thought that because they had paid a $29.99 Kazaa activation
fee, they were entitled to download such music."
and
http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=291&ipod-accessories&ipod
"Briana thought that there was nothing wrong with downloading music from
the sharing networks since her mom paid for service that made the
downloads possible. "I got really scared. My stomach is all turning.""
Yes, but she wasn't tagged for downloading. She was in hit for
distributing, as further research would have shown. My quote came from
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/index.
html>
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-03-23-riaa-suits_x.htm>
No details. As close as it gets to details indicates that the students
involved were redistributing.
Ho ho ho wishful thinking on your part.
Not really. I'd love to see the RIAA go down in flames. Perhaps you can
indicate the details I missed, then. (No? Thought not.)
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/ripped/riaa-argues-songs-ripped-to-your-comp
uter-for-personal-use-are-unauthorized-copies-332550.php>
In the actual suit: "... the couple's being sued for sharing songs over
KaZaA ... "
The RIAA's decades-old assertion that the license is to the combination
of content and media rather than content alone was a side issue,
specifically noted as supplemental.
Read the case again, the RIAA was claiming that MP3s from legally owned
CDs were illegal infringements irrespective of whether they are shared
or not.
In a supplementary brief, as I noted. The crux of the case was
distribution.
Post by %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're 0 for 3 with one to-be-determined. My recollection is
vindicated so far.
Utter shite.
Or not, as it turns out. Are you a sock puppet for Rowland, or just
incapable of reading for content?
TaliesinSoft
2007-12-11 03:47:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:42:08 -0600, Gregory Weston wrote
(in article <uce-***@comcast.dca.giganews.com>):

[in response to a preceding posting in this thread by Chris Holland]
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
To me, using a licensed product without having purchased the license is
thievery, big time, big big time. If everyone using a licensed product
properly paid for it the cost per user would likely go down. The end result
is that those of us who are honest are effectively penalized.
--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... ***@mac.com
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-11 09:07:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by TaliesinSoft
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
To me, using a licensed product without having purchased the license is
thievery, big time, big big time.
But not to the law. To the law, using a licensed product without paying
for it isn't anything to do with the licence contract, which cannot
apply in any case unless you agree to it before purchase (usually
imposible if you've bought physical media 'cos it's inside the box).
It's all to do with breaking copyright law - which turns out to be a
civil offence, and not the crime of theft at all.
Post by TaliesinSoft
If everyone using a licensed product
properly paid for it the cost per user would likely go down.
There's no evidence for that - and see below.
Post by TaliesinSoft
The end result
is that those of us who are honest are effectively penalized.
Not really, because the price of a lot of software is based on the idea
that the user will be making money out of it in a commercial setting:
that's where the publishers intend to make their money. The cost is
deliberately much higher than any normal home user would be willing to
spend.

It's just the way the world works. I don't see any good solution.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
T i m
2007-12-11 23:07:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:07:38 +0000,
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Post by TaliesinSoft
If everyone using a licensed product
properly paid for it the cost per user would likely go down.
There's no evidence for that - and see below.
Post by TaliesinSoft
The end result
is that those of us who are honest are effectively penalized.
Not really, because the price of a lot of software is based on the idea
that's where the publishers intend to make their money. The cost is
deliberately much higher than any normal home user would be willing to
spend.
It's just the way the world works. I don't see any good solution.
Rowland.
From memory wasn't it the makers of Wordstar (as one example) that
worked out that only one in (say) 10 copies of their product were
bought and licenced properly. This was because the distribution disks
were easily copied etc.

They then released a version that couldn't so easily be copied and
their sales plummeted to a point where they got into serious financial
trouble?

All the best ..

T i m
tonza
2007-12-12 13:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Not really, because the price of a lot of software is based on the idea
that's where the publishers intend to make their money. The cost is
deliberately much higher than any normal home user would be willing to
spend.
As a software developer, the model is always "you pay me for the time
and resources I spent making the software available to you."

If you didn't pay me for my time and materials, and if I had a way to
prevent you from using it, I wouldn't allow you to use the software
without reimbursing me, because I am the copyright holder and licensor
of the software, and I don't want people using my software unless they
have reimbursed me for the time and materials I spent making the
software.

And the amount of time and materials I'm talking about depends directly
on the complexity of the project, and the anticipated target audience
(and therefore, anticipated distibution volume). If I knew that the
software wasn't going to be pirated like you suggest, then I would
probably charge less for the software, because the goal of many
independent software developers like myself strive to cover the costs
of making the software, plus a commission covering the time the
software project was in operation.

So as you can see, you are causing both developers and other customers
unnecessary grief... and you are helping discouraging me from making
more software since I run the risk of not covering the development
costs.
Post by Rowland McDonnell
It's just the way the world works. I don't see any good solution.
The solution is to pay for the software you intend to use. If you were
to use my software, I'd actually be willing to put in a 60-day payment
clause so you can use the software whilst you muster up the cash
(before the software times out on you), but I'd really like for you to
pay for my software in the end because that's my time and energy spent
on making the software. It's just common courtesy, really.

And BTW, not all software can be used in a commercial environment,
because the software may be intended for use by domestic computer users
like yourself. So the anticipated distribution volume that I have
mentioned above often covers domestic distribution in the interest of
keeping software prices down (otherwise, you'll be discouraged in
buying a license for the software, which helps neither of us).
Charging for commercial-only use limits the distributable domain of the
software, which would make the software unavailable to users like
yourself. And you're proof that you want the software... right? ;-)

So, consider the implications of not paying for software. It's called
theft, because you have decided to use the software without reimbursing
the costs involved in making the software. It's the same as any other
commodity in which human labour was involved in making a product: the
only difference is the fact that software is not tangible material in
which its availability to you cannot be controlled physically, making
it much easier for you to steal.

An alternative is to do what companies do for (contracting) developers
in vertical markets: you pay for the software up front, before the
project has even commenced--all you get is a plan, a schedule, and a
set of requirements, all with a limited guarantee of completion. Only
after the software is actually tested and completed will you get the
product you paid for. And I'd say all domestic software users won't
like that kind of business model.

Thank you for your understanding.
--
--
-- tonza
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-12 22:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonza
Post by Rowland McDonnell
Not really, because the price of a lot of software is based on the idea
that's where the publishers intend to make their money. The cost is
deliberately much higher than any normal home user would be willing to
spend.
As a software developer, the model is always "you pay me for the time
and resources I spent making the software available to you."
As someone who would never ever buy Adobe Photoshop because of the
price, the price of that product has nothing to do with the cost in time
or anything else in making the software available to anyone.

Do you see the point?
Post by tonza
If you didn't pay me for my time and materials, and if I had a way to
prevent you from using it, I wouldn't allow you to use the software
without reimbursing me, because I am the copyright holder and licensor
of the software, and I don't want people using my software unless they
have reimbursed me for the time and materials I spent making the
software.
And the amount of time and materials I'm talking about depends directly
on the complexity of the project, and the anticipated target audience
(and therefore, anticipated distibution volume). If I knew that the
software wasn't going to be pirated like you suggest, then I would
probably charge less for the software, because the goal of many
independent software developers like myself strive to cover the costs
of making the software, plus a commission covering the time the
software project was in operation.
So as you can see, you are causing both developers and other customers
unnecessary grief... and you are helping discouraging me from making
more software since I run the risk of not covering the development
costs.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Where do I say that I don't
think the creators should get the money they ought to get? I make no
such claim. I state quite clearly that I think the current situation is
bad for the creators and something needs to be changed so that the
creators of works get the payment they deserve, as is not currently the
case.

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
Post by tonza
Post by Rowland McDonnell
It's just the way the world works. I don't see any good solution.
The solution is to pay for the software you intend to use.
Why?
Post by tonza
If you were
to use my software, I'd actually be willing to put in a 60-day payment
clause so you can use the software whilst you muster up the cash
(before the software times out on you), but I'd really like for you to
pay for my software in the end because that's my time and energy spent
on making the software. It's just common courtesy, really.
I know all that, but why should I pay for free software? Plenty of
software is given away for no money at all. Your software's not as good
as the free software I use so I use the free stuff.

It's called market economics: when the superior product is cheaper and
better, it gets used.

Are you going to argue that people should be banned from releasing
software for free because it harms the marketability of your output?
Post by tonza
And BTW, not all software can be used in a commercial environment,
because the software may be intended for use by domestic computer users
like yourself. So the anticipated distribution volume that I have
mentioned above often covers domestic distribution in the interest of
keeping software prices down (otherwise, you'll be discouraged in
buying a license for the software, which helps neither of us).
I'd probably not buy your software. I don't know what you write, but
the way you go about doing things indicates that you'd end up wanting to
charge me far too much. In short, it sounds like you're a rip-off
merchant. I've been ripped off by too many shareware authors in the
past - it's got to the stage where I've reverted to my student attitude
of `sod 'em if they think they're getting any money from me'.

I've found that the authors of freeware are more inclined to provide
user support, for example, and tend to produce better software. And
they never try to rip you off, unlike the shareware authors.
Post by tonza
Charging for commercial-only use limits the distributable domain of the
software, which would make the software unavailable to users like
yourself. And you're proof that you want the software... right? ;-)
I beg your pardon?
Post by tonza
So, consider the implications of not paying for software. It's called
theft,
I call it utterly legitimate and 100% proper behaviour because the
software was not charged for.

Even in the case of actual commercial software, it is not theft because
theft is a crime that involves taking a possession away from someone.
Making an unauthorised copy does not take a possession away from anyone:
it is a civil offence.

So I have to say that you've just lost my respect entirely by firstly
accusing me of improper behaviour because I choose to use free software
to a large extent, and also for claiming that the civil offence of
breach of copyright is equivalent to the crime of theft.
Post by tonza
because you have decided to use the software without reimbursing
the costs involved in making the software.
The charge made for, say, MS Office or Adobe Photoshop has nothing
whatever to do with reimbursing the costs involved in making the
software and everything to do with charging all the market will bear.

Please don't try to make out that big business economics are the same as
small producer economics.
Post by tonza
It's the same as any other
commodity in which human labour was involved in making a product: the
only difference is the fact that software is not tangible material in
which its availability to you cannot be controlled physically, making
it much easier for you to steal.
I do wish you'd stop making that dishonest claim. It's breach of
copyright, a civil offence - not the crime of theft.

It's entirely unconnected with the process of manufacturing goods: when
making a copy of software, you do not need manufacturing equipment, raw
materials, or anything but the computer you already possess and a
trivial amount of electricity.

And when you make an unauthorised copy of software, it's not the same as
stealing a car because you're not taking anything away from anyone: it's
morally and legally unconnected with the crime of theft.
Post by tonza
An alternative is to do what companies do for (contracting) developers
in vertical markets: you pay for the software up front, before the
project has even commenced--all you get is a plan, a schedule, and a
set of requirements, all with a limited guarantee of completion. Only
after the software is actually tested and completed will you get the
product you paid for. And I'd say all domestic software users won't
like that kind of business model.
Thank you for your understanding.
Another business model I don't like is the tendency of shareware authors
to take your money, and then release a `major update' a month later and
demand another full payment for that.

I find that the best software I've got is the free stuff, on the whole.
Shareware's mostly a bit crap - the more you pay, the worse you get in
my experience.

Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Bill Rider
2007-12-12 07:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by TaliesinSoft
[in response to a preceding posting in this thread by Chris Holland]
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
To me, using a licensed product without having purchased the license is
thievery, big time, big big time. If everyone using a licensed product
properly paid for it the cost per user would likely go down. The end result
is that those of us who are honest are effectively penalized.
My BIL normally uses a desktop Mac at home and a Powerbook when he
travels. To keep his files synchronized, he keeps them both on his
desk, connected by ethernet. Microsoft probed by the internet, found
two copies of Office under a single license, and deleted them both. I
guess Microsoft requires him to buy two licenses for Office because he
needs two computers.
c***@gmail.com
2007-12-12 08:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Rider
Post by TaliesinSoft
[in response to a preceding posting in this thread by Chris Holland]
Post by Gregory Weston
So you're using a licensed product without having purchased a license.
Not thievery, but still a violation of international law.
To me, using a licensed product without having purchased the license is
thievery, big time, big big time. If everyone using a licensed product
properly paid for it the cost per user would likely go down. The end result
is that those of us who are honest are effectively penalized.
My BIL normally uses a desktop Mac at home and a Powerbook when he
travels. To keep his files synchronized, he keeps them both on his
desk, connected by ethernet. Microsoft probed by the internet, found
two copies of Office under a single license, and deleted them both. I
guess Microsoft requires him to buy two licenses for Office because he
needs two computers.
That's shocking! I think I've heard about that. (Is BIL=brother in
law?)

Related to that.. what happens if you use SuperDuper to clone your HDD
(full of a legit copy of Photoshop).

What if you then use this firewire drive to boot up another computer
and then run photoshop. Is that illegal?
nospam
2007-12-12 08:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Rider
My BIL normally uses a desktop Mac at home and a Powerbook when he
travels. To keep his files synchronized, he keeps them both on his
desk, connected by ethernet. Microsoft probed by the internet, found
two copies of Office under a single license, and deleted them both. I
guess Microsoft requires him to buy two licenses for Office because he
needs two computers.
microsoft office checks for other copies on the local area network and
it will refuse to run both. disconnect the ethernet cable and there
won't be a problem, other than a potential license violation.

microsoft does not probe users and even if they did, they could not
delete anything on the user's hard drive -- that would be actionable.
the worst case they can deactivate it. furthermore, any 'probe' could
trivially be blocked with a firewall.
Richard Maine
2007-12-12 08:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
microsoft office checks for other copies on the local area network and
it will refuse to run both. disconnect the ethernet cable and there
won't be a problem, other than a potential license violation.
Or, more practically, use LittleSnitch.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
Huge
2007-12-12 08:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Maine
Post by nospam
microsoft office checks for other copies on the local area network and
it will refuse to run both. disconnect the ethernet cable and there
won't be a problem, other than a potential license violation.
Or, more practically, use LittleSnitch.
Or better still, delete the SmallNFloppy trash and use something else.
--
"Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
and presumptuous desire for a second one."
[email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]
Bill Rider
2007-12-12 17:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
Post by Bill Rider
My BIL normally uses a desktop Mac at home and a Powerbook when he
travels. To keep his files synchronized, he keeps them both on his
desk, connected by ethernet. Microsoft probed by the internet, found
two copies of Office under a single license, and deleted them both. I
guess Microsoft requires him to buy two licenses for Office because he
needs two computers.
microsoft office checks for other copies on the local area network and
it will refuse to run both. disconnect the ethernet cable and there
won't be a problem, other than a potential license violation.
If he wants to be sure both computers stay synchronized, disconnecting
the cable is a problem.
Post by nospam
microsoft does not probe users and even if they did, they could not
delete anything on the user's hard drive -- that would be actionable.
the worst case they can deactivate it. furthermore, any 'probe' could
trivially be blocked with a firewall.
I don't know the technical meaning of "probe." As I recall, he told me
he had to reinstall Office. Wouldn't that mean it was deleted?
nospam
2007-12-12 19:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Rider
Post by nospam
Post by Bill Rider
My BIL normally uses a desktop Mac at home and a Powerbook when he
travels. To keep his files synchronized, he keeps them both on his
desk, connected by ethernet. Microsoft probed by the internet, found
two copies of Office under a single license, and deleted them both. I
guess Microsoft requires him to buy two licenses for Office because he
needs two computers.
microsoft office checks for other copies on the local area network and
it will refuse to run both. disconnect the ethernet cable and there
won't be a problem, other than a potential license violation.
If he wants to be sure both computers stay synchronized, disconnecting
the cable is a problem.
as noted in another post, little snitch can block it, as can a firewall
rule (i think its port 2222) and i vaguely recall a third party hack
that blocks it without having to muck with the networking or firewall.
but the easiest thing is yank the cable (i think it just checks once)
and plug it back in. of course, that information is for educational
purposes and not to be used to avoid paying for software. :)
Post by Bill Rider
Post by nospam
microsoft does not probe users and even if they did, they could not
delete anything on the user's hard drive -- that would be actionable.
the worst case they can deactivate it. furthermore, any 'probe' could
trivially be blocked with a firewall.
I don't know the technical meaning of "probe." As I recall, he told me
he had to reinstall Office. Wouldn't that mean it was deleted?
as i said, office will not run if it detects another copy on the local
network. he may have mistaken that to mean he needs to reinstall, or
maybe a reinstall is needed to reauthorize with a new serial number.

if microsoft was actively deleting software they'd be liable for a lot
more than a lost sale of office.
Wes Groleau
2007-12-11 03:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by nospam
i've yet to find a third party updater that cares where an app is.
worst case the user has to pick where the application actually is.
Microsoft Office Updater
Claims you can't update because you don't have the app

Adobe Reader
Not an updater, but if I move Adobe out of the apps folder, it acts weird.
--
Wes Groleau
"What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of person you are."
-- C.S.Lewis
nospam
2007-12-11 07:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wes Groleau
Post by nospam
i've yet to find a third party updater that cares where an app is.
worst case the user has to pick where the application actually is.
Microsoft Office Updater
Claims you can't update because you don't have the app
i have office v.x in a subfolder within the applications folder, and
although it's been a while, i'm pretty sure i updated it there. i
don't know about office 2004; it may have fallen prey to hard coded
paths.
Post by Wes Groleau
Adobe Reader
Not an updater, but if I move Adobe out of the apps folder, it acts weird.
adobe apps sometimes don't like to be moved after they are installed
(and that's also brain dead). had it been installed to a subfolder, it
probably would have worked fine. all of my adobe apps are in a
subfolder, and in fact, i ran the cs3 updater just a few weeks ago
without a problem.
Rowland McDonnell
2007-12-11 03:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Ymir <***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Ymir
You can in principle install applications anywhere that you want.*
However, there are some good reasons to put them in the application
folder.
First, software update (Apple's for sure, and presumably many third
party auto-updaters) expect to find software there and might not notice
software installed elsewhere.
Second, when your computer searches for applications associated with
particular documents, it begins its search in the applications folder
before searching the whole drive, so documents may take longer to open
if the application isn't installed in the applications folder
You're sort of right about the first bit, but you're wrong about the
consequences: what the computer does is search in the applications
folder and then other places for applications and creates an index file
from this - the Launch Services database (sometimes given as the LS
database). When you go to open a document, the OS searches the
database, rather than looking at all the files on your disc.

If you've got the app and the computer can't find it, you need to
rebuild the LS database. Some utilities to do this only search your
boot drive and can make the problem worse. MainMenu used to do this,
but doesn't do it any more (I figured out the solution and the author
included it in the first update he could).

[snip]

So: the ordering on disc doesn't matter, all that matters is `is it in
the database or not'. I assume that Apple uses a database file and
search method that is efficient so it should take the same time (more or
less) to find any app regardless of when it was picked up by the
database construction code.

Some apps do have hard-coded paths and won't work unless they're in the
/Applications folder, or won't work properly - stuff from the Unix side
of things seems more inclined to work that way. I've even got one
Classic app that will only work installed on the boot volume, don't ask
me why.

Vili.
--
Remove the animal for email address: ***@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
tonza
2007-12-12 13:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ymir
First, software update (Apple's for sure, and presumably many third
party auto-updaters) expect to find software there and might not notice
software installed elsewhere.
Software Update will only update software that is associated with
Mac OS X Installer packages. Applications which are often copied straight
from disk image files can be placed anywhere as long as they are copied
to Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) volumes.
Post by Ymir
Second, when your computer searches for applications associated with
particular documents, it begins its search in the applications folder
before searching the whole drive, so documents may take longer to open
if the application isn't installed in the applications folder (if you
add a ~/Applications folder to your home directory that will also be
searched prior to other locations -- I can't recall whether it will be
searched before or after /Applications).
The search path for document-to-application association entirely
depends on Launch Services, which keeps such a database of mappings,
and is updated every time the Mac OS X Finder discovers a new bundle on
the user's desktop (in the process of rendering an icon for it). So
the application doesn't actually have to live in /Appllications in
order for the association to work properly, nor does it have
performance penalties associated with it.

The /Applications folder is merely a convenient place for people to put
their applications in, and is a throwback from the original NeXTstep's
$DOMAIN/System, $DOMAIN/Library, $DOMAIN/Applications, $DOMAIN/Users
model, which allows these resources to be located on the system-wide
local machine (DOMAIN=/), the user account local machine
(DOMAIN="$HOME") and on the network
(DOMAIN=<someNetInfoDomainController>).

As an exercise, create an Applications folder in your Home folder, and
see how the Finder reacts!
Post by Ymir
André
*There might, of course, be specific applications out there which employ
employ absolute paths for which this might not be true, but I can't
think of why a sane programmer would do that.
--
--
-- tonza
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...