As regular readers of this page may have noticed, I have previously held the operating system from Redmond in something less than the highest regard.
Well, all that has changed. Below is a review of the soon-to-be-released Windows Vista that has convinced me of the error of my ways.
"After receiving counselling, medication, electroshock therapy and a prefrontal lobotomy, I am once again a happy Windows user."
Link to complete review below.
LOL - I had to go through the main site (http://distrowatch.com) to find it but it was funny - thanks.
> As regular readers of this page may have noticed, I
> have previously held the operating system from Redmond
> in something less than the highest regard.
> Well, all that has changed. Below is a review of the
> soon-to-be-released Windows Vista that has convinced
> me of the error of my ways.
> "After receiving counselling, medication,
> electroshock therapy and a prefrontal lobotomy, I am
> once again a happy Windows user." Link to
> complete review below.
SOBs like the author that believe theft is good. I didn't get to his review of Vista because I was so disgusted with his claims that he has the inherent right to steal the work of others and the fact that he has zero respect for the rights of millions of hard working people. I just hope he wasn't joking about prison as that is where he belongs.
> SOBs like the author that believe theft is good. I
> didn't get to his review of Vista because I was so
> disgusted with his claims that he has the inherent
> right to steal the work of others and the fact that he
> has zero respect for the rights of millions of hard
> working people. I just hope he wasn't joking about
> prison as that is where he belongs.
Please note the dateline on the "review."
And lighten up a little. :-)
> And lighten up a little. :-)
No. I spend an enormous amount of time and effort dealing with software pirates. If he wants to make an AF joke about Vista that's fine. But it was clear he, and millions like him, believe in the preamble.
> No. I spend an enormous amount of time and effort
> dealing with software pirates. If he wants to make an
> AF joke about Vista that's fine. But it was clear he,
> and millions like him, believe in the preamble.
Many people believe that the DMCA and software patent laws are examples of legislation gone too far - protecting big businesses while neglecting the rights of end users. That doesn't make them software pirates, nor advocates of software piracy.
I doubt the author is actually against the basic principle of authors getting paid for their work. There are deeper issues, such as: Is software a creative work protected by copyright or is it an invention protected by patents? Am I entitled to break copy-protection in order to make a backup copy of software I've paid for?
> Many people believe that the DMCA and software patent
> laws are examples of legislation gone too far -
> protecting big businesses while neglecting the rights
> of end users. That doesn't make them software pirates,
> nor advocates of software piracy.
It makes them software pirates if they pirate software. Believing it is OK doesn't make them less guilty.
> I doubt the author is actually against the basic
> principle of authors getting paid for their work.
I think he clearly is against this.
> There are deeper issues, such as: Is software a
> creative work protected by copyright or is it an
> invention protected by patents?
It is a creative work protected by copyright and is specifically spelled out as such in the Copyright Act of 1978 and worldwide in the Berne Convention as well as the DCMA. This issue was settled decades ago.
> Am I entitled to break
> copy-protection in order to make a backup copy of
> software I've paid for?
Yes. There is no issue there either.
The Internet has made protection of individual property rights very difficult. Not just because of the individual crooks; but the major corporations themselves trying to take every cent they can from small fry. I fought Google for months because they were selling my trademark to guide my traffic to a scammer selling progression systems. When you typed Casino Verite into Google, an ad came up titled Casino Verite Blackjack that took you to a scam site. I also fought eBay for months for allowing someone to sell poor quality copied CDs of CV claiming they were authorized versions. Both Amazon and eBay have since had legal problems for allowing this type of activity in numerous cases. I'm also fighting Casino on Net (888.com) for creating hundreds of phony websites using content stolen from my site and my trademark to redirect my traffic to their casino. So copyright law isn't just protecting the big corporations from the little guy. It also protects the little guy from crooked, big corporations. Individual property rights protect anyone's rights.
Of course there is the little guy that thinks everything should be free. (Didn't a country try that once?) And I am currently fighting an SOB that has stolen content of mine to grab my Google traffic and I have to put up with hundreds of sites that post cracks to CV. I've put hundreds of hours into rewriting protections in CV software to get around these criminals. All of this cuts into my development time. I have two choices. I can spend a huge amount of my time fighting these crooks. Time that is taken away from support and development of new functionality. Or I can ignore them. In that case, I can't get the funds to sustain the effort and would have to abandon the products.
So, no I won't "lighten up" on the problem.
regards,
norm
Blackjack Scams
Type my trademark "Casino Verite" into Google. Make certain to include the quotes since that will avoid picking up the two words separately. There are 116,000 hits. Obviously many legitimately refer to my software. The other >100,000 references are text stolen from my site, crack sites, warez sites, porn sites, and other efforts to guide my traffic to their sites or pirate my software.
For an example see the online casino portal http://casino-verite-blackjack.als-cr.cz. The page is titled Casino Verite Blackjack. The text includes "to Finance liberal office to of casino verite blackjack price three Manchester the In pictures U.S. online on the rum Unilever rating against like efficiency their longtime site....We once really one casino verite blackjack of Universal, last to Netherlands, taking his receiving with s close I high. They even have the nerve to say at the end "Copyright by casino-verite-blackjack 2005"
> It makes them software pirates if they pirate
> software. Believing it is OK doesn't make them less
> guilty.
That's true. But software piracy isn't even mentioned in the article, only violation of DMCA and software patent laws. The latter do not imply the former.
> I think he clearly is against this.
Well it's hard to determine the author's stance on software piracy from a work of satire. But I'm trying to demonstrate that he may agree with the basic principle of copyright and patents while objecting to specific legislation.
> It is a creative work protected by copyright and is
> specifically spelled out as such in the Copyright Act
> of 1978 and worldwide in the Berne Convention as well
> as the DCMA. This issue was settled decades ago.
Then why the proliferation of software patents? Just open Adobe Reader and look at the 50 or so patents and patents-pending that protect it. Why was Amazon allowed to patent one-click shopping? Some companies acquire as many software patents as they can simply to use them as a weapon in the courts. Was this what was intended when the patent system was created?
>> Am I entitled to break
>> copy-protection in order to make a backup copy of
>> software I've paid for?
> Yes. There is no issue there either.
Doesn't the DMCA make this illegal?
> The Internet has made protection of individual
> property rights very difficult. Not just because of
> the individual crooks; but the major corporations
> themselves trying to take every cent they can from
> small fry... So copyright law
> isn't just protecting the big corporations from the
> little guy. It also protects the little guy from
> crooked, big corporations. Individual property rights
> protect anyone's rights.
Agreed, but has the DMCA made it any easier for individuals and small businesses to protect their rights, or just the big corporations?
I sympathise with your plight protecting CV but as a trademark holder you do have to actively protect your trademark and unfortunately this involves time and money. In an ideal world you shouldn't have to protect your software from pirates as well but unfortunately that's a reality too. Although, FOSS doesn't have this problem.
> That's true. But software piracy isn't even mentioned
> in the article, only violation of DMCA and software
> patent laws. The latter do not imply the former.
Not true. See below.
> Well it's hard to determine the author's stance on
> software piracy from a work of satire. But I'm trying
> to demonstrate that he may agree with the basic
> principle of copyright and patents while objecting to
> specific legislation.
The DMCA merely underlines what was already true. That copyright law counts on the I'Net also. As if it wasn't obvious to honest people in possession of brain cells. I have filed DMCA complaints. As with any other legislation; honest people pay attention to the complaints and dishonest people ignore them. Also, he specifically references "pirated software." As if there is something wrong about laws against theft of software.
> Then why the proliferation of software patents? Just
> open Adobe Reader and look at the 50 or so patents and
> patents-pending that protect it. Why was Amazon
> allowed to patent one-click shopping? Some companies
> acquire as many software patents as they can simply to
> use them as a weapon in the courts. Was this what was
> intended when the patent system was created?
Software cannot be patented. Algorithms and other mechanisms, sometimes implemented in software, can. Why should software be treated differently than any other enabling mechanism? You will also find my name on software patents. They are taken out partly because the copyright law has been weakened by rampant lawlessness. This is unfortunate. Polls show that the majority of college students believe that stealing from me is acceptable. Napster officers belong in prison; but instead made millions while seriously damaging the music industry.
> Doesn't the DMCA make this illegal?
No. The only law I know of against decryption is related to national security. It's a dumb law. But not part of the DMCA. The following is taken from the DMCA:
"Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent
unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second."
Emphasis mine. For years, people that want the right to steal from other people have lied about the law to make it look stupid and excuse their theft. These people are common criminals.
> Agreed, but has the DMCA made it any easier for
> individuals and small businesses to protect their
> rights, or just the big corporations?
The DMCA protects small businesses more than large corps. Large corps could use the Copyright Act of 1978.
> I sympathise with your plight protecting CV but as a
> trademark holder you do have to actively protect your
> trademark and unfortunately this involves time and
> money. In an ideal world you shouldn't have to protect
> your software from pirates as well but unfortunately
> that's a reality too. Although, FOSS doesn't have this
> problem.
FOSS is a joke. There have been successes. But I can count the successes on one hand. People don't realize the costs involved in creating modern software. Not just the software licenses I pay for, but this year alone I need to purchase three pieces of hardware each in the thousand dollar range to keep up with the technology. (Future announcements will show why.) Going to Vista in the manner that I want will probably cost me in excess of $10,000. Meanwhile, inherently dishonest people will continue to excuse their anti-social behaviour by throwing up strawmen arguments that the law prohibits reasonable actions that in fact are pure inventions.
> The DMCA merely underlines what was already true. That
> copyright law counts on the I'Net also. As if it
> wasn't obvious to honest people in possession of brain
> cells. I have filed DMCA complaints. As with any other
> legislation; honest people pay attention to the
> complaints and dishonest people ignore them. Also, he
> specifically references "pirated software."
> As if there is something wrong about laws against
> theft of software.
OK, I thought you were objecting mainly to the first paragraph of the Introduction, but I see the mention of "pirated software" in the last paragraph of the Introduction. I thought it was more about criticizing the sentences imposed for pirating software (or perhaps even about parental responsibility), than advocating it. But I understand where you're coming from now.
> Software cannot be patented. Algorithms and other
> mechanisms, sometimes implemented in software, can.
> Why should software be treated differently than any
> other enabling mechanism?
Because other enabling mechanisms can't be protected by copyright.
> You will also find my name
> on software patents. They are taken out partly because
> the copyright law has been weakened by rampant
> lawlessness. This is unfortunate.
Exactly. Some software patents are being used, not for their intended purpose, but to claim additional rights that should either be granted under copyright law, or not granted at all. e.g. Amazon's own implementation of one-click shopping should be protected but it shouldn't prevent other sites from allowing their customers to buy things with one click.
> Napster officers belong in
> prison; but instead made millions while seriously
> damaging the music industry.
Perhaps. But without Napster would we have iTunes today? Napster showed the recording industry that their was a thriving untapped market out there that they could make money exploiting, rather than spend money shutting down.
> "Section 1201 divides technological measures
> into two categories: measures that prevent
> unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures
> that prevent
> unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or
> selling devices or services that are used to
> circumvent either category of technological measure is
> prohibited in certain circumstances, described below.
> As to the act of circumvention in itself, the
> provision prohibits circumventing the first category
> of technological measures, but not the second. "
> Emphasis mine. For years, people that want the right
> to steal from other people have lied about the law to
> make it look stupid and excuse their theft. These
> people are common criminals.
That's the bit I was thinking of. So I am allowed to circumvent measures that prevent me copying a work (where I am entitled to make such a copy) but I am not allowed to make or sell a device or service to do so (under certain circumstances). If someone uses a form of copy-protection that can be circumvented with a paperclip, are manufacturers of paperclips suddenly breaking the law? Presumably the answer depends on those "certain circumstances".
As I am not under its jurisdiction I haven't studied this law much. Perhaps people have lied to me about it, or perhaps it is stupid. If the Act grants rights to make copies in some cases, and then it takes them away by not allowing people to do so, then it is stupid. That doesn't give anyone an excuse to go around pirating software though.
> The DMCA protects small businesses more than large
> corps. Large corps could use the Copyright Act of
> 1978.
But they couldn't use it to go after people who crack their encryption or DRM schemes. I'm not clear how the DMCA helps individuals and small businesses protect their rights.
> FOSS is a joke. There have been successes. But I can
> count the successes on one hand.
Your definition of success must revolve around making money. Millions of people use FOSS everyday. The internet practically revolves around it.
> People don't realize
> the costs involved in creating modern software. Not
> just the software licenses I pay for, but this year
> alone I need to purchase three pieces of hardware each
> in the thousand dollar range to keep up with the
> technology. (Future announcements will show why.)
> Going to Vista in the manner that I want will probably
> cost me in excess of $10,000.
Which is why much FOSS is built on other FOSS which doesn't require licence fees, and has a wide community of users and developers all contributing back to it. The downside is that it usually lags behind commercial efforts. But perhaps we should leave the FOSS discussion for another thread.
> Exactly. Some software patents are being used, not for
> their intended purpose, but to claim additional rights
> that should either be granted under copyright law, or
> not granted at all. e.g. Amazon's own implementation
> of one-click shopping should be protected but it
> shouldn't prevent other sites from allowing their
> customers to buy things with one click.
The Amazon suit is probably without merit. All laws can be misused. But living without law isn't the answer.
> Perhaps. But without Napster would we have iTunes
> today? Napster showed the recording industry that
> their was a thriving untapped market out there that
> they could make money exploiting, rather than spend
> money shutting down.
iTunes is a bad idea. It locks you into one source. Apple never learns:-) In any case, yes we would have had downloadable music at some point without criminality as an enabling device.
> That's the bit I was thinking of. So I am allowed to
> circumvent measures that prevent me copying a work
> (where I am entitled to make such a copy) but I am not
> allowed to make or sell a device or service to do so
> (under certain circumstances). If someone uses a form
> of copy-protection that can be circumvented with a
> paperclip, are manufacturers of paperclips suddenly
> breaking the law? Presumably the answer depends on
> those "certain circumstances".
The law is desgned to prevent the sale of devices used to replicate and distribute copyrighted material. These are not paperclips.
> As I am not under its jurisdiction I haven't studied
> this law much. Perhaps people have lied to me about
> it, or perhaps it is stupid. If the Act grants rights
> to make copies in some cases, and then it takes them
> away by not allowing people to do so, then it is
> stupid. That doesn't give anyone an excuse to go
> around pirating software though.
> But they couldn't use it to go after people who crack
> their encryption or DRM schemes. I'm not clear how the
> DMCA helps individuals and small businesses protect
> their rights.
It creates a mechanism to file copyright infringement rights and makes it clear that the I'Net is not a law-free zone, as thought by many people.
> Your definition of success must revolve around making
> money. Millions of people use FOSS everyday. The
> internet practically revolves around it.
Hardly. I don't use any FOSS that I can think of. Apache and Mosaic are the only true success stories that come to mind.
> Which is why much FOSS is built on other FOSS which
> doesn't require licence fees, and has a wide community
> of users and developers all contributing back to it.
> The downside is that it usually lags behind commercial
> efforts. But perhaps we should leave the FOSS
> discussion for another thread.
Perhaps. I would gladly pay nothing in fees if I could. But, none of the dozens of licenses that I purchased for use in CV have free equivalents that are adequate to the task. The old maxim "You get what you pay for" still rings true in most cases.
Apparently the DMCA doesn't go far enough?
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks