Re: Only a small percentage of society is in denial
Obvious troll is obvious.
3080 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
“The idea we should dilute intellectual property is utterly barmy,” Whittingdale said
The idea we should permit 'intellectual property' in its current form is what is utterly barmy. What we have now is the beginnings of a global, indefinite tax on future culture. There will be no more Handel, or Bach; no more Shakespeare; no more Mark Twain; no more mix tapes; no more second-hand stores; there will be only the renewing of a "license" to the gatekeepers. Gatekeepers of art and media that should belong to society and be freely enjoyable by all.
That is not to say it should be without cost, after all selling books, putting on shows etc all need funds. But after the reasonable copyright is up (say, 10-20 years), they should be free as in freedom. Free to distribute, parody, re-work, share, build on. Just like the classics are now - and the classics seem to be doing rather well if you ask me, even if the originals are out of copyright.
This simply will not be possible with commercial gatekeepers holding on to their "property" for the shareholders. Future culture will simply be a wasteland of commercial dross where artists and the public suffer under the wheels of the corporate machine.
This is the future being laid out before us, and this is what must be resisted. This is why we need ideas like Copyleft and Creative Commons. This is why we need to encourage alternatives to the RIAA/MPAA/BPI cabals.
PIPA, SOPA, SIPA, Hadopi, DEA, etc are evil laws that do not serve the societal interest. So what if a few companies go to the wall due to the Internet. So what? Survival of the fittest. Evolve or die. Provide the service people want, or go bankrupt. End of discussion.
Instead our toadying "leaders" enact laws to enslave our future culture to some faceless bottom-line. The bottom-line of an industry that is renowned for false-accounting and screwing artists over much more than any copyright infringers may have.
Artists need money to live and eat like the rest of us. The RIAA/MPAA/BPI etc do not represent artists (never have), they represent companies whose sole purpose is to maximise short-term profit at any cost. Nothing else. And if that means screwing over the actual talent, then this is what will (and does) happen.
So if you support artists, art, culture, expression and freedom; your only choice is to oppose these laws and the people who represent them.
"I buy paperbacks to read. When they're read they head straight to a charity shop."
Try that with a Kindle copy. Oh wait, you can't.
Personally I do keep a selection of hard/paper-backs in the house. Either for reference or to re-read or simply because the book holds some personal value to me.
@Some Beggar. I did not realise you have a Kindle. How does "people who undervalue their freedom" sit with you instead?
"My kindle is chock full of non-DRM'd material that required precisely bugger all "pissing around""
For now. And it can be deleted on a whim. You do remember "1984" don't you?
"Perhaps you could ask a youth to help you navigate the tricky world of the future?"
Unlikely to help, they won't understand this antiquated concept of "freedom". Just because you don't value your freedom, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. I do not own any Apple, Amazon or Sony products precisely because I do value my freedom. Maybe that makes me a neck-beard to you, more fool you.
@Some Beggar
"How likely is an Amazon catastrophe?"
Today, right now? Slim. Tomorrow? Well, did you hear about Pan Am? Big companies do fail y'know. And not only that, what if Amazon "upgrade" the DRM to something more active then they have an outage. "Kindle says 'No'" perhaps?
My point is, anyone buying a Kindle (or any similar device that can only read proprietary standards, let alone DRM'd ones) is an idiot. The competitors (e.g. Kobo Touch) can at least read ePubs without pissing around in "Calibre" or similar.
The Kindle et al are DRM'd, what happens to people's "books" if Amazon go out of business or have some kind of major infrastructure issue. Are the public able to get access to the key or otherwise retain the use of the media they have bought (e.g. by contacting the original publisher)?
Or do the public have to go out and buy their "books" again?
"Motorola will be held to its promise to make its standard essential patents available on fair and reasonable terms,"
And this is why FRAND is not a substitute for Open Standards. Are you paying attention gov.uk?
As much as I love to see MS getting a boot in the balls (which they so richly deserve for their anti-open, anti-standards policies) these patents are getting way out of hand. Time they were rescinded.
...the Flying Spaghetti Monster is suing Apple, HTC, Google, HP, ASUS, this professor, the inventor of the push-button and those hand-graphic arrow signs for infringing on the FSMs patent for a "jointed pointing device, powered by the users own body, and located as an array at the end of directional appendages".
Seriously - patents are getting used way too much by way too many people and this is simply diluting whatever validity justifiable patents may have.
Of course it's patentable. Yours was probably two LCD screens. This is e-Ink. Totally different.
And low power. Totally and utterly different.
It's even curved at the to. Totally, utterly and unbelievably different.
How dare you suggest the the professionals at the USPTO give out patents for nothing. Just how very dare you! Why, that if attacking a vital organ of the capitalist system. Are you some kind of commie terrorist?
@ukgnome
OMG! Deport him to Guantanamo! He's looking at the HTML!!!!!!!!!! (froth, seethe). And that quote is from Auntie who is supposed to be getting behind teaching kids to code. They need a boot in the balls. Then again, editing a URL is an offence in the UK (I shit you not - I remember just such a story from a few years ago).
What kind of utter moron does dev work on the PUBLIC server anyhoo?
"Is programming macros not programming?"
No - it is an abhorrence to all that is good an proper in the world.
"Do some fundamentals, i.e. core office skills for everybody"
Yes, teach the fundamentals. Not "How to push buttons in Word" but the actual fundamentals. "This is what a mail merge *is*", "This is what a database *is* and we use it to drive a mail merge" etc.
As Andrew said above, using Excel to do NPV or regression analysis is not the important bit. The NPV or regression analysis is.
There is far, far to much teaching of button-pushing and nothing about the actual fundamentals (and how to tinker).
Adults assume the kids are because the adults are afraid. Always.
In my experience, if you show a kid how anything works (be that code, an engine or martial arts technique) they almost immediately become fascinated and begin to want to tinker with it. This tinkering may or may not lead to a life-long obsession/career, but it is never met with fear.
Only adults know fear of the kind implied because adults are taught that failure is bad. Kids don't know that yet.
Should coding be compulsory? Maybe.
Should promoting an understanding of how things work that it's OK to tinker and how to tinker safely be compulsory? Yes. 100%. Utterly without reservation. In the IT world this has certain ramification though; i.e. no proprietary software (as you can't tinker with that).
In yer dreams, most IT policies are against it. And as others have said, if I was to use my device at work, I'd want some kind of compartmentalisation. I certainly would not want my personal mobile number known to work - I am not paid to be on-call 24/7.
If the work environment was hosted as virtual image (or "in the cloud" as the PR wonks would have it) then almost any device could connect via SSH or similar and work carried out using that. Devices could even be swapped and work continue (if using SCREEN, MOSH etc). Maybe that's the way to go?
The main stumbling block would be open standards (or lack thereof). Far too many things would still be tied to proprietary crap.
...as proposed by the UK government ("FRAND" is not open in any sense of the word).
MS lobbies against open standards across Europe.
MS attempted to destroy web interoperability (IE6 et al).
MS forced the ISO to allow a standard that is not open and infected with patents (OOXML).
MS constantly attacks open projects (namely Linux).
MS is not open in any shape or form nor does it support free/open standards/projects except when forced to do so by rule of law (i.e. they breach the GPL or the EU regulator kicks them in the ass).
This new venture is simply part of Operation Extend.
Cadbury's is USA-ian and only every really produced a low-grade sugar carrier in a vegetable-fat base.
British chocolatiers that (and there are still some, such as Coca Mountain andHotel Chocolat) do do decent chocolate; but just like a decent beer (not mass-produced crap), they need to be sought out and can rarely be bought on high-street shops.
It's these smaller producers who will suffer, but the producers of low-grade junk will weather the storm (as it will be hard to spot the quality dropping further).
...that the likes of Virgin do not permit you you connect your own router to the network. Yes, I know about "modem mode" but that means having to run two devices when one would do the job.
I've also done @Semaj's trick of having a separate switch, although in my case it's just for the office.
Buy Sennheiser. You can get some decent ones for about £30 (e.g. PMX 200). Of course, if you want the big "DJ" type ones so you can look like a total tube walking down the street, they do cost more.
My g/f has some in-ear SkullCandy ones she says are really good too.
Spending £50+ on 'phones is only for the audiophile, professional or hipster-with-more-money-than-sense.
Money is no object when you get given your stuff for free, as El Reg does.
Get a styrofoam box, place ice pack in bottom, add beer. *POW* instance fridge. Cost? Maybe £15? Add some covering and *POW* fits with your decor.
I saw pictures of a home theatre system with the seating made from old pallets and cushions. I'd be much more interested in doing something like that. Still cost less that £1,250 and seats about 9.
Also look at the revelations coming out from the USA over their scanners and cack-handed "security theatre".
More and more it seems like the main objective is to instil a sense of fear in the public. And if anyone dares questions it, well by-golly-gosh they must be a terrorist!
"Dear Border Check Underlings,
It has come to our attention that some of you think the automation of your jobs is a bad thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Automating your job means that my pals make many millions from selling us crap...err...hi-tech machinery.
With these machines we can then fire...err...engage in personnel efficiencies and thus my pals who own the airports can make many more millions.
There is no need to worry about public safety, I certainly don't, and there is no profit in public contentment for my pals. They need the public in a state of fear so we can justify buying more stuff.
So please support this programme of making my pals loads of money so I can get a nice fat directorship and maybe the odd bungs.
Yours in aloofness,
A. N. Other (MP)"
To respond to @John in seriousness
"First they have to demonstrate loss of earnings. As someone already mentioned, lego may "lose" some sale to Lego users but may gain sale to other toy user."
You simply apply MPAA/RIAA maths. You only count the losses, assume that you are only counting a fraction of the losses and that all drops in sales are caused by copyright infringement. You are claiming that (say) sharing season 1 of a series is a promotion for season 2 and that the increase in sales of 2 make up for the loses in 1. The MPAA/RIAA does not see it that way (despite, time and again, reports showing that sharing has no impact on sales).
I actually think this project is a great idea and show what we in IT face day-in day-out. I was trying to apply the logic in reverse; what if we applied IT practices in reverse with the draconian copyright/patent laws? Hopefully to highlight just how stupid most of the stuff in copyright/patent law is (when applied to IT at any rate).
If the companies have any sense (which the probably don't) they should run a competition; who can make the maddest thing by combining specific sets/features?
Maybe I am wrong, but I would expect the companies to lawyer-up and "protect their IP for the good of the stakeholders".
All the affected companies would have every right in the world to take them to the cleaners. And that includes suing for loss of earnings.
Where the MAFIAA showed the way, the toy-makers will follow. It hurts industry, their shareholders and thus you, if there is a free alternative to their products (or in this case, free interoperability).
And that's the levy? US$5,000 per infringement or something? Just how many lost sales can Lego calculate because kids can now use their K'nex with it? Make that good lawyers and deep pockets.
Really. I find this outbreak of socialist multi-toyism repugnant and disgusting. Teaching children that things from different vendors should work together is disingenuous to modern business. I really don't understand why a pro-MS site like El Reg has mentioned such a cancerous little project. I bet these sandal-wearing beardies even used a copyleft license.
Get Andrew O. on the case - he'll soon tell them why their attempt to express a free culture for the benefit of mankind rather than the bottom line is an affront to all that is wholesome and worthy.
This project is a prime example of why all the plans to have standards that are not protected and validated by patents are fundamentally wrong.
Think of the children! Do you want them to grow up penniless? You can't eat toys!
@Gareth. I thought was the whole point of them using a Flash player (it provides the DRM).
Not looked into Couchpotato or Sickbeard yet, but it is retarded in the extreme that I pay for a service and then have to go pirate to actually use the service. I wonder if that is a good defence in court?
@Robert Ramsay: Dunno about PS3s as I don't own one, I just know that I can't use their catch-up or on-demand services because I am not on Windows or OS X. I've read in the forums that Android is barred too.
I am no web expert, but I can't see any reason for blocking; all the other catch-up sites work fine and dandy.
I am paying for legal access to content, but the pirates provide a better service to a better price. Irony.
1) I use VMedia for home-working. I am always in one shell or another (usually RDP) so probably do use a fair bit of bandwidth.
2) Their router is, frankly, shit. Not only is the firmware crap, but the hardware itself was clearly designed by a moron. Just a shame you can't connect your won router (yes, I know about modem mode).
3) To continue with how shit the router is, it provides no method of traffic shaping or monitoring. Guess I'll have to learn how to do my own.
4) It was very nice of VMedia to send me a letter/email telling me about this change and showing me how I can check my usage against their measures. Oh wait, there was no letter and they provide no way of checking!
5) Add to that the fact they block non-Windows/OS X users from their services (and that includes Android!) despite VMedia selling Android phones, being an Ubuntu mirror AND shipping set top boxes that run a Linux. MORONS! They are no offering executable downloads (or something like that) they have no reason to block based on OS.
I do think of the children. I want the children to grow up in a society that respects freedom, where the public are free to question their the government and hold it to account, where it is hard (nay, impossible) for the state to prevent corruption being brought to the fore, where freedom of speech (by any means), and movement are sacrosanct.
And instead of this we are allowing a world to be created where every aspect of a child's life is indexed, monitored, controlled and a request for privacy taken as an admission of guilt.
A corrupt, secretive and snooping government is of more threat to children than all the paedos and terrorists in the world multiplied together.
And, as others have said, all this will do is cause those of us with some level of technical prowess to engage in active encryption/blocking, educate others on how to do so and create the tools to make it even easier so that everyone can protect their privacy. Tools which, unfortunately, could be used by others with less noble goals.
This law will CREATE even more of the problems it seeks to solve.
This law is wrong.
Theresa May is wrong.
The ConDems are wrong, Labour was wrong.
Our entire government and the EU are wrong; they are no longer fit-for-purpose.
Kick the people hard and often enough, they will kick back in time; it is never a clean fight, regardless of who triumphs. Read some history.
...and in every way, I come to fear my own "elected" government than the terrorists.
I say "elected" as almost all the MPs come from the same morally bankrupt, public-school educated, elitist, holier-than-thou social class. They have no concept of the real world.
Freedom is a weapon. A weapon of the people against a corrupt regime. This is why our government wished to remove it from our grasp.
...it does prove that a GNU/Linux system can compete with MS on the desktop, this means some level of competition and competition is good for the consumer.
Whether or not GNU/Linux is better is beside the point, reducing the near Communist-style stranglehold MS holds on the desktop can only make things better for the purchasers of such systems.
Furthermore, the promotion of Open Standards (and by my definition, that means patent-free) such as ODF can only be a good thing for interoperability.
Really, whether or not you are a Penguin-lover or a freedom-hater; there is no downside to this that I can see. Unless you are an MS shareholder because your monopoly fuelled gravy-train may just be beginning to run out of steam.
1) MS will not permit OEMs to ship ARM mobos that can run anything other than Windows. How far they can push OEMs is a question, but one would imagine that certain...advice may be offered "We have varied the terms of your OEM agreement, pray we do not vary them further."
MS has more than enough of a desktop monopoly to restrict the availability of the other devices, which is why the regulators need to stamp on the "Win8-only" clause.
2) MS rakes it in from Android over various patent claims. You can question the validity of those claims, but the "loss" of market to Android devices might actually improve MS's bottom line.
3) MS is, and has always been, utterly hostile to F/OSS and has only released stuff into the F/OSS ecosystem after threat of suit or to entrench it's non-F/OSS stack. I am sure they will concoct further plans to try and keep F/OSS in check.