Planned obsolescence is intentionally using inferior or otherwise engineered to break after a certain period of time. Items with planned obsolescence are typically designed so that the cost of repairing the broken item is equal to or greater than simply buying a new one.
After the maximum uses, this product doesn't break down or otherwise fail; it uses an electronic system to deliberately refuse to turn on. All parts are still in perfect working order and, without the electronic switch, would continue to work for a significant period of time.
While the end state of these two methods is similar (forcing users to rebuy the product) the DRM method feels much worse. This is because, logically, you know that nothing is wrong with the product. There's no broken piece, no fading light, nothing physically wrong. It just stops working because the company that sold it to you said so. At least with a cheap plastic part or other failure you can see that something is broken. If it was a cheap item in the first place, you don't feel as ripped off because the creator used cheap components, and theoretically it could have kept working (planned obsolescence rarely has a specific date it's designed to break down).
People don't like being told what they can and can't do with products they buy. They paid for it, it's "theirs," and if the creator doesn't like it...don't sell it. We like to own things, and having other people restrict our use of things we own, especially if it is purely for their benefit and not ours, is insulting and frustrating.
This is why DRM in general is so unpopular. It's not that everyone just wants to "steal" stuff, or pirate it. It's that we don't like strings attached to stuff we bought.
After ten minutes or so of installing TOR you could have your wish. And then be very disappointed that it's just a blog whining about the Syrian leadership, which you probably don't care about.
But at least you now know how to use TOR, so it's not a total loss!
Glad I'm not the only one. I'm fairly sure the syntax error is somewhere in the area of "further competition" but I probably just left a semicolon off somewhere again =)
They roll in and blanket the town with flyers & ads talking about how it will kill children, raise the dead, and keep Obama president for 3 more terms.
Wait a minute...municipal broadband will raise the dead? That's awesome. It even negates the first issue, because if we can raise the dead kids, no harm, no foul!
Er, never mind, I got distracted. Your point is valid =).
Fair enough, I was thinking about the automated cameras that ticket parked cars when I wrote that section. Pretty much the same general idea; using automated systems to charge people with a crime regardless of accuracy and little to no repercussion if wrong.
At least for speeding and running lights there's actually a potential risk to public safety. DMCA takedowns only theoretically give an economic benefit to a copyright holder...and even that theory is extremely weak, if not provably false. But hey, even the slight chance that someone will make a bit of money is apparently worth the sacrifice of our freedom of speech, right?
There's a bigger fallacy at issue here. Even if they could compete, the only situation where this would have been an issue for Johnny Cash's estate is if someone heard Alan Jackson's song and then decided NOT to buy Johnny Cash's song because they'd bought Alan Jackson.
Why would this happen? If someone liked the Alan Jackson song there's a good chance they'd like Johnny Cash's song too, which means Alan Jackson's song increases the likelihood of a Johnny Cash purchase. If they weren't going to buy the Cash song anyway, either because it's not selling anymore, they hadn't heard it, or a myriad of other reasons, then Cash's estate hasn't lost anything.
The chances of similar songs harming either artist is much less likely than the opposite. You see this most commonly in Hip-Hop and Rap music when "competing" artists make group songs. Rather than dilute or harm their music, these artists recognize that including other musicians in their music brings groups of fans together, which potentially increases the revenue for all involved.
Art and culture are not scarce resources, and the more people involved the more valuable they become. This is why a video game that allows modding is more valuable than one that doesn't, and why movies, books, and shows that incorporate pop-culture references draw such big crowds. People love the shared culture and are drawn to it. People also love the familiar, and enjoy slight changes to an old favorite. Treating culture like coal or tables (scarce resources) simply doesn't make sense and makes it less valuable.
You can't block TOR from a technical standpoint (that's half the purpose) but you can certainly arrest/drone strike anyone running an exit node. That's the great thing about governments...they aren't limited by pesky "technical limitations" and "morals," they can just arrest or murder anyone who doesn't conform.
And hey, you won't know about it because you lost access to TOR. Everybody wins! (What losers? There are no losers...)
My guess is that someone wanted to define tax evasion for their point, so they searched for "tax evasion" and copied and pasted from somewhere that had a decent definition. They're writing an internet comment, not a thesis; plagiarism isn't exactly the first thing they're worried about, let alone "content infringement."
Either way the takedown is asinine. It's one thing to copy an entire article, or even the article's main points. To worry about your definition (not even a great definition) of a common term is ridiculous. Even if fair use didn't apply (I'm pretty sure it does, but the legality can be funky) that only shows an issue with the law, not the "infringement."
There really needs to be a way to punish companies for bogus DMCA takedowns. The argument that "there's too much stuff out there, so we can't verify everything!" is a cop-out. That's like the police whining that there's too many cars so they can't catch every speeder. Boo hoo, nobody cares. But when your automated systems punish those who haven't broken the law, there needs to be consequences, or all you're doing is encouraging abuse.
Graham's answer: "I don't email. No, you can have every email I've ever sent. I've never sent one. I don't know what that makes me."
Graham's explanation is in the original article. If he's doing it to avoid a paper trail, he's not admitting to it. Not sure I see what Tim could have expanded on based on the quote already used in the article.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Such games, with their real-time animation, happen to be about the only user application which demands the power of an expensive computer.
Have you ever used a computer for serious video editing, rendering, or 3D graphics? What about physics or economics simulations? These require some decent horsepower (or a lot of wasted time). Most of the major editing programs, such as Adobe Photoshop/Premier, 3d Studio/Maya, Sony Vegas, etc. are not natively compatible with Linux and run only with varying degrees of success and efficiency using WINE. There are alternatives, of course, but none of them are at the level of these programs (no matter how much people claim Blender can "do it all"...it's not as good). A $200 computer and Linux just won't meet any sort of professional design work requirements; gaming is equally as bad, but not the only reason for a better computer.
Equally to the point, they should probably not share a machine with confidential documents, because they are bound to be trojans.
Huh? All computer games are bound to be trojans? That's like saying all knives are bound to be murder weapons. Very confusing.
Certainly they are responsible for problems which result from interactions between different parts of the distribution, and additionally, they are supposed to know about reasonably common hardware, such as the components of motherboards.
Huh? That was my whole point; the distro wasn't able to handle basic device drivers. My mouse, sound card, and webcam all either failed to work or worked only in certain situations or with considerable effort. After those issues I didn't dare try to install any overclocking software. Maybe a bit paranoid but I wasn't going to let Linux touch my voltage after the problems I'd already had.
The point about cable is that the cable company won't sell you broadband at any kind of reasonable price, until you've bought all the cable channels.
I haven't used Comcast recently but I've used both Time Warner and Hawaii Telecom, and neither offered cheaper internet with bundled cable. They offered really cheap cable if you already had internet, but the internet alone was cheaper. In fact, I couldn't find a single article or ad that showed you could get bundled cable and internet on Comcast for cheaper than just internet. It's obviously in their best interest to get people to stick with having cable but you certainly aren't forced to and you aren't paying more to choose not to.
Granted, you may not want to use Comcast for other reasons (like being Comcast) but to imply that you're forced into cable or that you're getting better service using dial-up seems a bit extreme.
Anyway, all of your responses have only highlighted my original point; Linux works only in extremely limited purposes, such as the high tech level (which, no offense, you are not in) and the basic or extremely specialized computing level (which would probably work just as well, if not better, using a Chromebook, and for a similar price).
Which is too bad, because there's so much potential there. Oh well.
TV shows like the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Last Week Tonight often take clips and images directly from news organizations with little to no modification. There's no permission needed because they are commenting on the work. Sometimes they play a clip directly with no commentary, although it's obvious to the viewers that commentary is happening (usually because the clip highlights something really stupid).
This is all protected under fair use and parody. And it's vitally important that this right is protected, as being unable to comment on the speech of others (in whatever form that speech takes) not only violates the First Amendment but is a sign of living in a oppressed state.
As a lawyer and as the consulting editor on NPR's Double Take Toons, while I disagree with Chip Bok's view of Net Neutrality, but I do support him on his understanding of fair use.
You must be a terrible lawyer.
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them.
Nope. If I buy a painting, and then draw beards on all the women and put it upside down on my wall, I am not using or presenting it as the artist intended...and there isn't a shred of legal protection that prevents me from doing so.
In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work.
Nope. Copyright is not a moral right, and there is no right protecting the integrity of a work. He only has the right to be the sole distributor of his original work and derivatives thereof, if the derivatives are not covered under fair use. He has zero rights to this clear parody.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not even close. His original work is still available and we can all laugh at his ignorance together. Honestly, if it did somehow silence his speech, it would probably be better...at least he wouldn't have his idiocy broadcasted for the world to see. Alas, his speech is still available, and we can all ridicule it to our heart's content.
And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
Someone would mistake "The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" as his own work? I'm sure people make cartoons that refer to themselves in third person and insult themselves, while not commenting on the actual image shown, all the time.
Nothing you mentioned is covered by law, and would not even be entertained by a court, let alone successfully prosecuted. If you're his lawyer and/or consultant no wonder he has no idea how copyright law works.
Please, go for your lawsuit, let as all know how it works out. We need some more laughs around here!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Sorry, I may have made things unclear when I was discussing distros and companies. It's not the OS itself which is profitable or made for profit. It's the surrounding ecosystem. For example, some Steam games have native Linux versions but the vast majority don't. If I'm an user of Linux, and want to play computer games (as an example), my options are extremely limited.
So what? Developers don't generally bother with platforms that are unpopular (see: BlackBerry). The more popular and used Linux becomes, the more developers have a legitimate business reason to develop for the OS. This, in turn, gives the users of Linux more options, more freedom, and higher quality products.
By ignoring difficulties and releasing buggy, incompatible, and arcane software that only the most dedicated users will ever understand or be able to use efficiently, developers are less likely to make their software compatible with Linux. So now you're left with a buggy, incompatible, arcane, and empty OS. And with Windows 10 being released as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, not even the shenanigans of Windows 8 will be enough to draw people away from Windows. Your argument is this doesn't affect Linux or Linux users, but since an operating system is practically worthless without software, I strongly disagree.
Again, my issues with Linux were probably specific to my particular computer. I built it completely from individually purchased parts and each one has its own drivers and bugs. I went in to Linux expecting to be able to modify my system heavily if I chose but have a basic, working operating system at the core. It did not meet that expectation and did not do what I wanted it to do.
If I were using it for different purposes, perhaps just for programming or just for word processing, or even just for a specific business program, maybe I would feel differently. I use my computer for a myriad of purposes, from word processing, data analysis, graphic design, programming, video gaming, and entertainment. Hardly any of my existing software worked, or worked without significant trouble, and alternative software options were all inferior to existing or incompatible products.
Which was my original point. Developers are not going to spend the time and energy to make their software for systems that aren't going to make them a profit compared to the time invested in entering that market. If Linux users want a better experience, it's in their best interest to have more people enter the platform and create a demand for Linux-compatible software. The attitude of "it works for me, so it's fine" and the high learning curve, often without much help to users trying to switch (or outright derision from the community), hurts the platform as a whole for everyone...including existing users.
Graham has made it clear that he deliberately and consciously denies himself a communication tool that would enable him to make off-the-cuff statements without thinking them through.
He prefers not to do that.
Huh? We're talking about email, not text messaging. You have plenty of opportunity to review and think through something via email, and it's a fantastic organizational tool.
All he's made clear is that he's completely ineffective as a leader. The real work is being done without him. Anyone who's worked in the government (or even a decently sized corporation) knows that a significant percent of your productivity is based on your ability to organize, task, and communicate through email. He's automatically losing a huge amount of collaboration and situational awareness by choosing not to use it.
And if he were so opposed to making off-the-cuff statements without thinking them through, he would have never gone on the record telling the American public he's so backwards and incompetent he doesn't even use basic communication tools to do his job. Embarrassing emails are the least of his problems.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Um, your point about using 40-year-old computer systems and being proud of that was pretty much my point. I used Tandy 1000s, MS-DOS, and other green/orange-and-black computers with no hard drive, a 5.25" floppy. I think it was my third computer where I first used this fancy "mouse" thing.
I remember spending hours modifying AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files to create boot disks for each program, and finally finding the right code to get my stupid sound card working. I remember spending the time to type out long, complex commands and having to tab through multiple pages to find the right information...and heaven forbid you miss the page, because there was no "back" option; you got to start over. And forget copying that information elsewhere or multitasking; you got to write it down on a sheet of paper then manually type it in later.
Been there, done that. Those systems didn't have more freedom or customizability than modern ones. They were just harder to use and less forgiving. Do you program? Do you prefer the old compilers with hardly any documentation (let alone smart documentation), no autocomplete, arcane or useless syntax errors that didn't even highlight the general location of the error, etc.? I'll take my modern compiler with visual assistance and built-in libraries, error checking, and debug modules, thanks. If you prefer the old way that's fine, but the majority of people out there are unlikely to feel the same way.
I have no idea what you mean by becoming a "fraternity boy" by using broadband. Clearly it's meant to be derogatory but I can't really understand how it relates in this context. Your water supply example doesn't really make sense to me either; you're simply paying your phone company (probably for two phone lines) and dial-up company rather than Comcast. In both situations you're paying a private company for your "utility." While I certainly don't like Comcast, you're not really comparing like products; the crappiest broadband, heck even 3g wireless, is significantly better than the best dial-up internet (the fastest uncompressed dial-up is around 56 kbps whereas the slowest 3g is around 200 kbps; even with lossy compression a dial-up is still slower than the worst broadband or 4g internet). It's more like you're comparing a bicycle to a car. Sure, the bicycle works, but unless you're living in very specific circumstances it's rarely going to be even a fraction of the utility of a mid-low range car.
I'm glad Linux works for you, but the fact that you're satisfied with dial-up and your 40-year-old computer experience doesn't make a good case for Linux as being a viable alternative to Windows/Mac. I'm also confused why you would use two separate computers rather than a dual boot machine (possibly with two hard drives), especially if you're concerned about the price of broadband. And if it weren't for your dial-up internet, I'd wonder why you're using a manual rather than online Linux forums (which is the only reliable place I found to fix anything). I'm not trying to be rude or combative; I honestly don't understand your situation and how Linux is helping you, especially since you already paid for Windows.
I really want to like Linux, and I want it to be able to compete with Windows and Mac for a couple reasons. First, I want more developers to create awesome stuff for the platform, which they probably won't do unless the OS gets more adoption. Second, I want to see a free product compete with other operating systems, forcing them to deliver a better product at a lower price in order to stay relevant. Third, I like the idea of an OS I can really customize and make my own.
It just isn't there, and it concerns me that the people who use it are so wrapped up in their nostalgic "hipster" mentality that the programmers are catering to that crowd. It's just so much wasted potential.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Linux doesn't "want to dig into the Windows market". That's Microsoft (and Apple) think and doesn't apply.
I doubt the companies that develop the Linux distros agree. "Open source" is fantastic, but to imply that there is no monetary gain or advantage in competing with other players in a similar market is a bit naive.
Linux itself may be free, but much of the software and peripherals designed for it are not. The more people that adopt the Linux platform the more potential customers these developers stand to gain. By making Linux free they have a huge potential user base. While I'm certain there are Linux users that touch nothing but open source, free software there are plenty more that buy Linux compatible software.
There is a lot of potential money in making Linux a more popular OS. Being "elitist" and limiting your user base to tech snobs who love to reminisce about AUTOEXEC.BAT editing is a poor long-term plan for anyone utilizing the platform.
The more people that adopt Linux, the more developers are likely to spend the time and effort to develop software that is native to the OS, which makes the system better for everyone. It also encourages Microsoft and Apple to be a bit more competitive with their own products, and it's working to a degree already (I doubt Microsoft would offer Windows 10 as a free upgrade just for kicks).
I'm willing to learn a new system, and I'm willing to put in some effort to pull out some advanced features. I'm just not willing to have to fight my computer to do basic functions, like click mouse buttons. I'm not alone. And all the others like me are making your chosen platform have less options and be less profitable for developers.
I'm not sure how that's beneficial to anyone (other than Microsoft and Apple, of course).
On the post: DRM; Or How To Make 30,000-Hour LED Bulbs 'Last' Only One Month
Re: Where's the DRM?
Planned obsolescence is intentionally using inferior or otherwise engineered to break after a certain period of time. Items with planned obsolescence are typically designed so that the cost of repairing the broken item is equal to or greater than simply buying a new one.
After the maximum uses, this product doesn't break down or otherwise fail; it uses an electronic system to deliberately refuse to turn on. All parts are still in perfect working order and, without the electronic switch, would continue to work for a significant period of time.
While the end state of these two methods is similar (forcing users to rebuy the product) the DRM method feels much worse. This is because, logically, you know that nothing is wrong with the product. There's no broken piece, no fading light, nothing physically wrong. It just stops working because the company that sold it to you said so. At least with a cheap plastic part or other failure you can see that something is broken. If it was a cheap item in the first place, you don't feel as ripped off because the creator used cheap components, and theoretically it could have kept working (planned obsolescence rarely has a specific date it's designed to break down).
People don't like being told what they can and can't do with products they buy. They paid for it, it's "theirs," and if the creator doesn't like it...don't sell it. We like to own things, and having other people restrict our use of things we own, especially if it is purely for their benefit and not ours, is insulting and frustrating.
This is why DRM in general is so unpopular. It's not that everyone just wants to "steal" stuff, or pirate it. It's that we don't like strings attached to stuff we bought.
On the post: French Government Starts Blocking Websites With Views The Gov't Doesn't Like
Re: Am I the only one
But at least you now know how to use TOR, so it's not a total loss!
On the post: FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws
Re:
On the post: FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws
Re: Re:
Me too; I'd gladly pay for Last Week Tonight if they'd let me.
On the post: FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws
Re: Re: Re: $$talk$
Wait a minute...municipal broadband will raise the dead? That's awesome. It even negates the first issue, because if we can raise the dead kids, no harm, no foul!
Er, never mind, I got distracted. Your point is valid =).
On the post: Internet Brands Targets Techdirt Post For Removal Because Of 'Infringing' Comment Left By A Reader
Re: Re: Re:
At least for speeding and running lights there's actually a potential risk to public safety. DMCA takedowns only theoretically give an economic benefit to a copyright holder...and even that theory is extremely weak, if not provably false. But hey, even the slight chance that someone will make a bit of money is apparently worth the sacrifice of our freedom of speech, right?
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Re:
Why would this happen? If someone liked the Alan Jackson song there's a good chance they'd like Johnny Cash's song too, which means Alan Jackson's song increases the likelihood of a Johnny Cash purchase. If they weren't going to buy the Cash song anyway, either because it's not selling anymore, they hadn't heard it, or a myriad of other reasons, then Cash's estate hasn't lost anything.
The chances of similar songs harming either artist is much less likely than the opposite. You see this most commonly in Hip-Hop and Rap music when "competing" artists make group songs. Rather than dilute or harm their music, these artists recognize that including other musicians in their music brings groups of fans together, which potentially increases the revenue for all involved.
Art and culture are not scarce resources, and the more people involved the more valuable they become. This is why a video game that allows modding is more valuable than one that doesn't, and why movies, books, and shows that incorporate pop-culture references draw such big crowds. People love the shared culture and are drawn to it. People also love the familiar, and enjoy slight changes to an old favorite. Treating culture like coal or tables (scarce resources) simply doesn't make sense and makes it less valuable.
On the post: UK ISPs Now Filtering Websites That Simply List BitTorrent Proxy Websites, But Don't Host Any Infringing Content Whatsoever
Re: Re: Re: Step 1:
And hey, you won't know about it because you lost access to TOR. Everybody wins! (What losers? There are no losers...)
On the post: Internet Brands Targets Techdirt Post For Removal Because Of 'Infringing' Comment Left By A Reader
Re: Re:
Arg, pun not intended. Sorry.
On the post: Internet Brands Targets Techdirt Post For Removal Because Of 'Infringing' Comment Left By A Reader
Re:
Either way the takedown is asinine. It's one thing to copy an entire article, or even the article's main points. To worry about your definition (not even a great definition) of a common term is ridiculous. Even if fair use didn't apply (I'm pretty sure it does, but the legality can be funky) that only shows an issue with the law, not the "infringement."
There really needs to be a way to punish companies for bogus DMCA takedowns. The argument that "there's too much stuff out there, so we can't verify everything!" is a cop-out. That's like the police whining that there's too many cars so they can't catch every speeder. Boo hoo, nobody cares. But when your automated systems punish those who haven't broken the law, there needs to be consequences, or all you're doing is encouraging abuse.
On the post: Dear Politicians: Responding To The Clinton Email Scandal By Proudly Affirming You've Never Used Email Isn't Helping
Re: Re: Re: Give the complete story
Graham's explanation is in the original article. If he's doing it to avoid a paper trail, he's not admitting to it. Not sure I see what Tim could have expanded on based on the quote already used in the article.
On the post: Cable Proudly Declares Smart Shoppers A 'Lower Quality' Of Customer They Have No Interest In
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
Have you ever used a computer for serious video editing, rendering, or 3D graphics? What about physics or economics simulations? These require some decent horsepower (or a lot of wasted time). Most of the major editing programs, such as Adobe Photoshop/Premier, 3d Studio/Maya, Sony Vegas, etc. are not natively compatible with Linux and run only with varying degrees of success and efficiency using WINE. There are alternatives, of course, but none of them are at the level of these programs (no matter how much people claim Blender can "do it all"...it's not as good). A $200 computer and Linux just won't meet any sort of professional design work requirements; gaming is equally as bad, but not the only reason for a better computer.
Equally to the point, they should probably not share a machine with confidential documents, because they are bound to be trojans.
Huh? All computer games are bound to be trojans? That's like saying all knives are bound to be murder weapons. Very confusing.
Certainly they are responsible for problems which result from interactions between different parts of the distribution, and additionally, they are supposed to know about reasonably common hardware, such as the components of motherboards.
Huh? That was my whole point; the distro wasn't able to handle basic device drivers. My mouse, sound card, and webcam all either failed to work or worked only in certain situations or with considerable effort. After those issues I didn't dare try to install any overclocking software. Maybe a bit paranoid but I wasn't going to let Linux touch my voltage after the problems I'd already had.
The point about cable is that the cable company won't sell you broadband at any kind of reasonable price, until you've bought all the cable channels.
I haven't used Comcast recently but I've used both Time Warner and Hawaii Telecom, and neither offered cheaper internet with bundled cable. They offered really cheap cable if you already had internet, but the internet alone was cheaper. In fact, I couldn't find a single article or ad that showed you could get bundled cable and internet on Comcast for cheaper than just internet. It's obviously in their best interest to get people to stick with having cable but you certainly aren't forced to and you aren't paying more to choose not to.
Granted, you may not want to use Comcast for other reasons (like being Comcast) but to imply that you're forced into cable or that you're getting better service using dial-up seems a bit extreme.
Anyway, all of your responses have only highlighted my original point; Linux works only in extremely limited purposes, such as the high tech level (which, no offense, you are not in) and the basic or extremely specialized computing level (which would probably work just as well, if not better, using a Chromebook, and for a similar price).
Which is too bad, because there's so much potential there. Oh well.
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Re: Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
This is all protected under fair use and parody. And it's vitally important that this right is protected, as being unable to comment on the speech of others (in whatever form that speech takes) not only violates the First Amendment but is a sign of living in a oppressed state.
On the post: The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
Re: Chip Bok
You must be a terrible lawyer.
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them.
Nope. If I buy a painting, and then draw beards on all the women and put it upside down on my wall, I am not using or presenting it as the artist intended...and there isn't a shred of legal protection that prevents me from doing so.
In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work.
Nope. Copyright is not a moral right, and there is no right protecting the integrity of a work. He only has the right to be the sole distributor of his original work and derivatives thereof, if the derivatives are not covered under fair use. He has zero rights to this clear parody.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not even close. His original work is still available and we can all laugh at his ignorance together. Honestly, if it did somehow silence his speech, it would probably be better...at least he wouldn't have his idiocy broadcasted for the world to see. Alas, his speech is still available, and we can all ridicule it to our heart's content.
And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
Someone would mistake "The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" as his own work? I'm sure people make cartoons that refer to themselves in third person and insult themselves, while not commenting on the actual image shown, all the time.
Nothing you mentioned is covered by law, and would not even be entertained by a court, let alone successfully prosecuted. If you're his lawyer and/or consultant no wonder he has no idea how copyright law works.
Please, go for your lawsuit, let as all know how it works out. We need some more laughs around here!
On the post: Cable Proudly Declares Smart Shoppers A 'Lower Quality' Of Customer They Have No Interest In
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
So what? Developers don't generally bother with platforms that are unpopular (see: BlackBerry). The more popular and used Linux becomes, the more developers have a legitimate business reason to develop for the OS. This, in turn, gives the users of Linux more options, more freedom, and higher quality products.
By ignoring difficulties and releasing buggy, incompatible, and arcane software that only the most dedicated users will ever understand or be able to use efficiently, developers are less likely to make their software compatible with Linux. So now you're left with a buggy, incompatible, arcane, and empty OS. And with Windows 10 being released as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, not even the shenanigans of Windows 8 will be enough to draw people away from Windows. Your argument is this doesn't affect Linux or Linux users, but since an operating system is practically worthless without software, I strongly disagree.
Again, my issues with Linux were probably specific to my particular computer. I built it completely from individually purchased parts and each one has its own drivers and bugs. I went in to Linux expecting to be able to modify my system heavily if I chose but have a basic, working operating system at the core. It did not meet that expectation and did not do what I wanted it to do.
If I were using it for different purposes, perhaps just for programming or just for word processing, or even just for a specific business program, maybe I would feel differently. I use my computer for a myriad of purposes, from word processing, data analysis, graphic design, programming, video gaming, and entertainment. Hardly any of my existing software worked, or worked without significant trouble, and alternative software options were all inferior to existing or incompatible products.
Which was my original point. Developers are not going to spend the time and energy to make their software for systems that aren't going to make them a profit compared to the time invested in entering that market. If Linux users want a better experience, it's in their best interest to have more people enter the platform and create a demand for Linux-compatible software. The attitude of "it works for me, so it's fine" and the high learning curve, often without much help to users trying to switch (or outright derision from the community), hurts the platform as a whole for everyone...including existing users.
On the post: Dear Politicians: Responding To The Clinton Email Scandal By Proudly Affirming You've Never Used Email Isn't Helping
Re: Give the complete story
He prefers not to do that.
Huh? We're talking about email, not text messaging. You have plenty of opportunity to review and think through something via email, and it's a fantastic organizational tool.
All he's made clear is that he's completely ineffective as a leader. The real work is being done without him. Anyone who's worked in the government (or even a decently sized corporation) knows that a significant percent of your productivity is based on your ability to organize, task, and communicate through email. He's automatically losing a huge amount of collaboration and situational awareness by choosing not to use it.
And if he were so opposed to making off-the-cuff statements without thinking them through, he would have never gone on the record telling the American public he's so backwards and incompetent he doesn't even use basic communication tools to do his job. Embarrassing emails are the least of his problems.
On the post: Cable Proudly Declares Smart Shoppers A 'Lower Quality' Of Customer They Have No Interest In
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
I remember spending hours modifying AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS files to create boot disks for each program, and finally finding the right code to get my stupid sound card working. I remember spending the time to type out long, complex commands and having to tab through multiple pages to find the right information...and heaven forbid you miss the page, because there was no "back" option; you got to start over. And forget copying that information elsewhere or multitasking; you got to write it down on a sheet of paper then manually type it in later.
Been there, done that. Those systems didn't have more freedom or customizability than modern ones. They were just harder to use and less forgiving. Do you program? Do you prefer the old compilers with hardly any documentation (let alone smart documentation), no autocomplete, arcane or useless syntax errors that didn't even highlight the general location of the error, etc.? I'll take my modern compiler with visual assistance and built-in libraries, error checking, and debug modules, thanks. If you prefer the old way that's fine, but the majority of people out there are unlikely to feel the same way.
I have no idea what you mean by becoming a "fraternity boy" by using broadband. Clearly it's meant to be derogatory but I can't really understand how it relates in this context. Your water supply example doesn't really make sense to me either; you're simply paying your phone company (probably for two phone lines) and dial-up company rather than Comcast. In both situations you're paying a private company for your "utility." While I certainly don't like Comcast, you're not really comparing like products; the crappiest broadband, heck even 3g wireless, is significantly better than the best dial-up internet (the fastest uncompressed dial-up is around 56 kbps whereas the slowest 3g is around 200 kbps; even with lossy compression a dial-up is still slower than the worst broadband or 4g internet). It's more like you're comparing a bicycle to a car. Sure, the bicycle works, but unless you're living in very specific circumstances it's rarely going to be even a fraction of the utility of a mid-low range car.
I'm glad Linux works for you, but the fact that you're satisfied with dial-up and your 40-year-old computer experience doesn't make a good case for Linux as being a viable alternative to Windows/Mac. I'm also confused why you would use two separate computers rather than a dual boot machine (possibly with two hard drives), especially if you're concerned about the price of broadband. And if it weren't for your dial-up internet, I'd wonder why you're using a manual rather than online Linux forums (which is the only reliable place I found to fix anything). I'm not trying to be rude or combative; I honestly don't understand your situation and how Linux is helping you, especially since you already paid for Windows.
I really want to like Linux, and I want it to be able to compete with Windows and Mac for a couple reasons. First, I want more developers to create awesome stuff for the platform, which they probably won't do unless the OS gets more adoption. Second, I want to see a free product compete with other operating systems, forcing them to deliver a better product at a lower price in order to stay relevant. Third, I like the idea of an OS I can really customize and make my own.
It just isn't there, and it concerns me that the people who use it are so wrapped up in their nostalgic "hipster" mentality that the programmers are catering to that crowd. It's just so much wasted potential.
On the post: FCC Net Neutrality Rules Finally Released, Cue The ISP Lawsuits And Hyperbole
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cue the MPAA
On the post: Cable Proudly Declares Smart Shoppers A 'Lower Quality' Of Customer They Have No Interest In
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In a world where there's only two cable providers...
I doubt the companies that develop the Linux distros agree. "Open source" is fantastic, but to imply that there is no monetary gain or advantage in competing with other players in a similar market is a bit naive.
Linux itself may be free, but much of the software and peripherals designed for it are not. The more people that adopt the Linux platform the more potential customers these developers stand to gain. By making Linux free they have a huge potential user base. While I'm certain there are Linux users that touch nothing but open source, free software there are plenty more that buy Linux compatible software.
There is a lot of potential money in making Linux a more popular OS. Being "elitist" and limiting your user base to tech snobs who love to reminisce about AUTOEXEC.BAT editing is a poor long-term plan for anyone utilizing the platform.
The more people that adopt Linux, the more developers are likely to spend the time and effort to develop software that is native to the OS, which makes the system better for everyone. It also encourages Microsoft and Apple to be a bit more competitive with their own products, and it's working to a degree already (I doubt Microsoft would offer Windows 10 as a free upgrade just for kicks).
I'm willing to learn a new system, and I'm willing to put in some effort to pull out some advanced features. I'm just not willing to have to fight my computer to do basic functions, like click mouse buttons. I'm not alone. And all the others like me are making your chosen platform have less options and be less profitable for developers.
I'm not sure how that's beneficial to anyone (other than Microsoft and Apple, of course).
Next >>