bartons locked terrible ? mlaahhaha no

[RusH]

This one is :

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647

DRM here we go

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH // [502-20-14-27 tylko SMS]
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ <-- to prawdziwy ja
Pent-up passive-aggressive dork alert! Whoop! Whoop!
Whoop! Whoop! Boy, you're really lighting up this alarm here!

[Stacey]

RusH wrote:
This one is : http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647 DRM here we go Pozdrawiam. I like the

"They will have to buy new DVD players to watch TV programmes, and movies
may be recorded using this technology in the future."

So ==WE== get to pay to protect them? Who is protecting US??? I guess we
aren't paying the Gov enough money for them to bother looking out for the
general public anymore?
--

Stacey

[RusH]

stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bokbdk$1ecrrl$2@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de:
So ==WE== get to pay to protect them? Who is protecting US???

:) I guess protecting Iraq is enought for now :D
I guess we aren't paying the Gov enough money for them to bother looking out for the general public anymore?

Illegal Linux, thats new.



Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH // [502-20-14-27 tylko SMS]
http://kiti.pulse.pdi.net/qv30/ <-- to prawdziwy ja
Pent-up passive-aggressive dork alert! Whoop! Whoop!
Whoop! Whoop! Boy, you're really lighting up this alarm here!

[Stacey]

RusH wrote:
stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bokbdk$1ecrrl$2@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de: So ==WE== get to pay to protect them? Who is protecting US??? :) I guess protecting Iraq is enought for now :D


You mean protecting Iraqs oil don't you? We didn't even bother to guard the
police stations, much less their museums but we had the oil fields covered!

--

Stacey

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bom4ar$1g3f41$3@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>,
fotocord@yahoo.com says... RusH wrote: stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bokbdk$1ecrrl$2@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de: So ==WE== get to pay to protect them? Who is protecting US??? :) I guess protecting Iraq is enought for now :D You mean protecting Iraqs oil don't you? We didn't even bother to guard the police stations, much less their museums but we had the oil fields covered!

Oh, good grief! Please take such nonsense to a political group.
....may I suggest one of my former *IDIOT* governor's..

--
Keith

[chrisv]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH
<rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:
This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go

We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <pb9vqvs9llsp6pofhdjagv3dacvrinqvor@4ax.com>,
chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.

As the owner of a car, you'd leave the keys in it for anyone else
to use? No, I'm on the content owner's side here. Sure, I'd
like to see a way of making limited copies too. Indeed I think
they'll go busto when things get too tight. Passive resistance
works.

--
Keith

[Stacey]

chrisv wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.

Vote with your money. Spend it elsewhere. I plan to. As soon a CD's can't be
copied (I work in a hostile environment and always use copies there, 2-3 of
each will get ruined a year) I'll just listen to what I already own. I'm
NOT going to purchase anything from a company that ASSUMES I'm a crook.
Unless of course I can just return "defective" originals for lifetime free
replacement?
--

Stacey

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <bos9ru$1h1k6u$1@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>,
fotocord@yahoo.com says... chrisv wrote: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again. Vote with your money. Spend it elsewhere. I plan to. As soon a CD's can't be copied (I work in a hostile environment and always use copies there, 2-3 of each will get ruined a year) I'll just listen to what I already own. I'm NOT going to purchase anything from a company that ASSUMES I'm a crook.

ABSOLUTELY!
Unless of course I can just return "defective" originals for lifetime free replacement?

Fat chance! I have several volumes in tape, vinyl, and CD. I
ain't buying 'nother copy.

--
Keith

[Stacey]

Keith R. Williams wrote:
In article <bos9ru$1h1k6u$1@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, I'm NOT going to purchase anything from a company that ASSUMES I'm a crook. ABSOLUTELY! Unless of course I can just return "defective" originals for lifetime free replacement? Fat chance!

But that may be how a "class action" motion against this might work? They
remove our right to make a "backup" so when their media is "defective",
they could be forced to replace MILLIONS of copies on their dime? Between
something like that AND lower sales maybe they'll wake up and get out of
bed with MS?

--

Stacey

[Charles Howse]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:41:13 -0500, stacey wrote:
I'm NOT going to purchase anything from a company that ASSUMES I'm a crook. Unless of course I can just return "defective" originals for lifetime free replacement?

But then they'd have to decide whether they are selling you a widget or
licensing intellectual property to you. At the moment they seem to want it
both ways.

Cheers
Anton

[chrisv]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:58:03 -0500, Keith R. Williams
<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:
In article <pb9vqvs9llsp6pofhdjagv3dacvrinqvor@4ax.com>,chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.As the owner of a car, you'd leave the keys in it for anyone elseto use? No, I'm on the content owner's side here.

I'm not against copy protection per se. If they have ways to prevent
me copying DVD's or whatever, that's fine. I'm against the Orwellian
possibilities (read: probabilities) of DRM, and the power it will hand
to the evil businessman.
Sure, I'dlike to see a way of making limited copies too. Indeed I thinkthey'll go busto when things get too tight. Passive resistanceworks.

Maybe. And maybe passive resistance means being stuck with useless
old hardware, incapable of running the new DRM-enabled software.

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:07:30 -0600) it happened chrisv
<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in <ecf4rvkg2uanv1tsk6gnmeoc0ipt7fehll@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:58:03 -0500, Keith R. Williams<krw@attglobal.net> wrote:In article <pb9vqvs9llsp6pofhdjagv3dacvrinqvor@4ax.com>,chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote: >This one is : > >http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647 > >DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.As the owner of a car, you'd leave the keys in it for anyone elseto use? No, I'm on the content owner's side here.I'm not against copy protection per se. If they have ways to preventme copying DVD's or whatever, that's fine. I'm against the Orwellianpossibilities (read: probabilities) of DRM, and the power it will handto the evil businessman.Sure, I'dlike to see a way of making limited copies too. Indeed I thinkthey'll go busto when things get too tight. Passive resistanceworks.Maybe. And maybe passive resistance means being stuck with uselessold hardware, incapable of running the new DRM-enabled software.
I have thought about this a lot now.
What if Europe does not follow?
Then for example Disney will export normal DVD movies here, and re-inport
into the US may follow.
Also I know ++ ways around that.... but I know they read me so I am not going
into detail.
We will wait for the first 'DRM boxes', then when all is that way, release the
simple way around it.
Hopefully they will never come here.
Also think SCART connector, in Europe it is the standard (to connect any audio-
video equipment).
Now that has RGB and FBAS (composite).
Every TV and video here has one (or more then one).
Take the RGB, or FBAS, digitize it, and there is your copy.
I know there are plans to make a digital interface, but only ONE system needs
to be cracked then...
It will be as funny as macrovision, EVERYBODY will have a remover...
Will death penalty help?
Not sure, with no-one left the national product will be very low...
hehe

[George Macdonald]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:58:03 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@attglobal.net>
wrote:
In article <pb9vqvs9llsp6pofhdjagv3dacvrinqvor@4ax.com>,chrisv@nospam.invalid says... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:36:50 +0000 (UTC), RusH <rush@kiti.pulse.pdi.net> wrote:This one is :http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147647DRM here we go We're screwed. The evil businessman strikes again.As the owner of a car, you'd leave the keys in it for anyone elseto use? No, I'm on the content owner's side here. Sure, I'dlike to see a way of making limited copies too. Indeed I thinkthey'll go busto when things get too tight. Passive resistanceworks.

One problem here: the real content owner is getting stiffed as bad as the
consumer. Have you read Janis Ian's view on the "Internet Debacle":
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html ?... definitely worth
a read. Interesting quote: "from personal experience: in 37 years as a
recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never
once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money."

Is it too much to hope that the artists could umm, dispense with the creeps
who want to sell us 20c plastic discs for $10. (plus a meagre margin for
the creator of the work) and look into exploiting the new distribution
mechanisms available through the Internet for their own benefit? With
current technology there is always the risk of "theft/misappropriation" by
the consumer but would it be worse for them than dealing with a record
company's err, misappropriations?:-)

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

[Stacey]

AD. wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:41:13 -0500, stacey wrote: I'm NOT going to purchase anything from a company that ASSUMES I'm a crook. Unless of course I can just return "defective" originals for lifetime free replacement? But then they'd have to decide whether they are selling you a widget or licensing intellectual property to you. At the moment they seem to want it both ways.


Bingo and if we FORCED them to sell us what they claim they are selling, I
want free replacements when their "delivery mechanism" fails..

--

Stacey

[Dean Kent]

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message
news:qg94rvg2mhacnrjot74q126t5p8an3ok00@4ax.com... One problem here: the real content owner is getting stiffed as bad as the consumer. Have you read Janis Ian's view on the "Internet Debacle": http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html ?... definitely
worth a read. Interesting quote: "from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money." Is it too much to hope that the artists could umm, dispense with the
creeps who want to sell us 20c plastic discs for $10. (plus a meagre margin for the creator of the work) and look into exploiting the new distribution mechanisms available through the Internet for their own benefit? With current technology there is always the risk of "theft/misappropriation" by the consumer but would it be worse for them than dealing with a record company's err, misappropriations?:-)

While I do understand there are differences, I see this as being similar to
current patent law. Today, the vast majority of patents are assigned to
corporations. I know of one, for example, that offers $5000 to anyone in
the company who patents something. That is a flat fee, regardless of the
real value of the patent. That company also *forces* employees to sign an
agreement that anything the employee says/does/writes/thinks/develops/etc.
while an employee - whether on the job or not - is 'owned' by the company,
and must be assigned to the company. Some of the agreement is unenforcable
in court, but that doesn't stop the lawyers from having you sign it anyway.

Once the patent is assigned, the original inventor receives only what the
assignee decides to give. In some cases it could be a percentage of the
actual revenues, but in others it is nothing at all. This is how the music
industry operates, and you can see where it has lead. I personally find it
abhorrent, though others seem to think it encourages R&D spending. From my
own experience, I say it doesn't in every case, and the law needs to be
changed to prevent corporations from having patents assigned to them by
default, such that the 'artist' ends up with absolutely no negotiation power
at all, and the corporation ends up bleeding everyone...

Regards,
Dean
Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who,
me??

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <GWEsb.701$Pj3.25712758@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
dkent@realworldtech.com says... "George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote in message news:qg94rvg2mhacnrjot74q126t5p8an3ok00@4ax.com... One problem here: the real content owner is getting stiffed as bad as the consumer. Have you read Janis Ian's view on the "Internet Debacle": http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html ?... definitely worth a read. Interesting quote: "from personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money." Is it too much to hope that the artists could umm, dispense with the creeps who want to sell us 20c plastic discs for $10. (plus a meagre margin for the creator of the work) and look into exploiting the new distribution mechanisms available through the Internet for their own benefit? With current technology there is always the risk of "theft/misappropriation" by the consumer but would it be worse for them than dealing with a record company's err, misappropriations?:-) While I do understand there are differences, I see this as being similar to current patent law. Today, the vast majority of patents are assigned to corporations.

Since they pay for the patents... ...and pay to prosecute them,
what's your beef?
I know of one, for example, that offers $5000 to anyone in the company who patents something. That is a flat fee, regardless of the real value of the patent. That company also *forces* employees to sign an agreement that anything the employee says/does/writes/thinks/develops/etc. while an employee - whether on the job or not - is 'owned' by the company, and must be assigned to the company. Some of the agreement is unenforcable in court, but that doesn't stop the lawyers from having you sign it anyway.

I signed such a document ~30 years ago. The fact is that they
pay me to develop new widgets, as as such *should* own the fruits
of their investment. Getting $5K for filling out some simple
paperwork is a bonus. Indeed it's an investment for the
corporation. A guy I know has upwards of a hundred patents and
supplements his salaryy quite well, a patent at a time. It works
for both sides.
Once the patent is assigned, the original inventor receives only what the assignee decides to give.

Of course! Sheesh, Deano, this is obvious! The assigned fronted
the money and deserves the payback. If the assignee gets $5K
he's profiting too.
In some cases it could be a percentage of the actual revenues, but in others it is nothing at all.

The inventor was working for the assigned, no? The inventor used
the assigned's facilities and intellectual and real property
developing the idea, no? Where's the beef? This is all fully
agreed upon in advance. In short, you're simply whining about
how bad corporate life is. Frankly, I get paid to produce
widgets, if I can make money by filling out some additional
paperwork, get some money, my name in the USPTO, and a plaque,
life is good. I didn't invest my money or time doing it. I was
already paid for that work.
This is how the music industry operates,

I disagree 100%. Do you think the 'stones get robbed? Sure some
flash kidz group (that was invented by the recording company)
will make squat. So be it. They didn't own their IP to begin
with. They're no more than actors (who do get paid rather well,
btw).
and you can see where it has lead.

No, I don't, but I'm sure you'll tell us your "progressive"
version of the future.
I personally find it abhorrent, though others seem to think it encourages R&D spending.

Encouraging R&D spending is abhorrent? Intellectual property
rights do indeed encourage R&D spending: those who spend have a
greater chance at payback. This is undeniable. Thus you believe
that encouraging R&D spending is abhorrent. Interesting!
From my own experience, I say it doesn't in every case, and the law needs to be changed to prevent corporations from having patents assigned to them by default, such that the 'artist' ends up with absolutely no negotiation power at all, and the corporation ends up bleeding everyone...

Hogwash! They pay me to develop widgets and they deserve the
benefits! Invention is part of the deal. The company tosses in
a few bucks to entice people to do the paperwork necessary to
patent what has already been invented (and a few speculate what
may be needed).

--
Keith