- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Preventing DVD Playback on Linux Like Prohibition in the 1920's
You and I can claim the status of victims with regard to US Economic policy. Our government has attempted to ram a false notion down the throats of the world and our government has failed us. The notion has an underlying theory which assumes the US has an absolute value advantage economically with regard to intellectual property. What's that mean? In economics a country, industry and/or organization like Microsoft has an absolute advantage on the producers side if a good absorbs fewer resources than required in another country or by other individuals and/or companies. The US has lost that advantage mostly to China, Brazil and eastern Europe. In the one area where the US had an absolute advantage, we have lost it. We held an absolute advantage in technology until we started exporting jobs to countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, Mexico and China. Once the cat was out of the bag, our friends became our economic foes. Trying to Force Feed the BabyThe US has attempted to use law enforcement to maintain an absolute advantage in the past. During a period from 1920 to 1933 our brilliant government passed the Eighteenth Amendment commonly referred to as Prohibition. Similar in many ways to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act our government dedicated resources to enforcement of the law. In the US, prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933 in the United States. Consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, but subsequently increased to the highest levels ever seen in the US. In addition, it failed in all of its goals and created a massive underground of crime. Eventually crime became organized and ruthless. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has much in common with the 18th Amendment. It attempts to enforce an absolute value advantage where none exists and eventually prohibits mutually beneficial exchanges. All those who have lined up on the side of Microsoft will soon discover that they are fighting battles they can never win. So they stoop to creating the BSA, influencing politicians and undermining whoever they perceive as their enemies. Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, IBM and the rest of Microsoft's partners will find themselves painted with the same brush. You cannot enforce the DMCA any more than you can force people to buy American cars. Take a hint from General Motors: The word eventually gets out that you have inferior products and the price isn't right. Microsoft's OEM partners will become the buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st Century. Trying to enforce your laws will eventually turn out like trying to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. You can only devote so many resources to the problem. The problem will eventually overwhelm you. Outdated ParadigmPeople around the globe have started waking up from their malaise. The belief of an American advantage in software technology, for example, might exist in the minds of Bill Gates and his friends, but others do not buy it. Microsoft's software absorbs more resources than required in another country or by other individuals. You may attempt to implement enforcement to create the illusion of absolute value, but that too will fail. Like the availability of alcohol during Prohibition, people can find supplies without much trouble. Right now, you can obtain the decryption code on DVDs either by purchasing a license for that component by itself or you can download it from Internet sites in foreign countries. Canadian Whiskey wasn't as easy to get as DVD playback code. And while you can use the courts to get to a few people, most will never see enforcement. A vast number of people will take the risk and never believe they will get caught. If you increase enforcement, the courts will ease the penalties because judges will see the law as unfair based on the volume of cases they see. What's Next?We have already seen a shift in economic models in the world. Awareness of the shift has grown. We now have what economists call a comparative advantage to reconcile. Individuals, countries and companies see a comparative advantage between themselves and the United States. On the product side, countries outside the United States possess a lower opportunity cost than with Microsoft. They can create their own products with Linux and open source software. Without an absolute advantage, Microsoft has attempted all sorts of strategies. They have given their software away. They have brought legal action against the heads of foreign governments like in Brazil. They have sent the BSA out to enforce Microsoft's so called rights. They have attempted to interfere with governments through influence peddling. Anyone who dares speak up against them faces the potential of some enforcement action. Microsoft uses attorneys and lobbyists the way some people use workers on an assembly line to mount parts. Microsoft and Hollywood face a similar fate. They are rowing upstream and against the tide. Eventually they will wear out. It's Only a Matter of TimeMicrosoft proliferated the software field because their products were good enough and cheaper than competitive products of the time. They had just as much difficulty reaching their goals in the beginning as Linux does today. At the time, people didn't get the concept of relative value and held out as long as they could. Eventually, Microsoft prevailed. But if they continue to believe they have an absolute advantage today because people continue to buy their products, they will only fool themselves. They will be like the King who had no clothes, General Motors or the railroads. People in the US finally realized that Prohibition did not work. It took thirteen long years and a depression to finally act. Funny as it may seem, the end of Prohibition saw a decline in alcohol consumption and that famous community effort called Alcoholics Anonymus. In many ways, people are still holding on to the belief that Microsoft and the idea of absolute value in intellectual property works. It works about as well as Prohibition. It's time to wake up folks. |
LXer Day Desk: 11-27-2005Comments (64)
and the War on Drugs has been a great success too!
16 earlier comments in the full thread.
To built on your point, prohibition also focuses on deviate behavior. The deviation in the population isn't going to change one way or the other.
So guys --
Prohibition always fails?
How do you define success?
Is it absence of the proscribed behavior, or is it a better set of overall outcomes than would exist in the absence of the prohibition?
For example...
Out where I live, driving over the speed of 65 mph is prohibited. Many people, however, drive at 70. A fair number drive at 75. Some go faster than that.
Is the prohibition a failure or not?
Prohibition always fails?
How do you define success?
Is it absence of the proscribed behavior, or is it a better set of overall outcomes than would exist in the absence of the prohibition?
For example...
Out where I live, driving over the speed of 65 mph is prohibited. Many people, however, drive at 70. A fair number drive at 75. Some go faster than that.
Is the prohibition a failure or not?
It's neither a success or a failure. Some states don't have speed limits on the highways. Something like 95% of the drivers will always seek the safest speed. It doesn't matter where or which state, etc.
Populations have interesting characteristics. In actuarial science the practitioners can tell you within some ridiculously low variance how many houses will burn, how many people will break their arms, have heart attacks, catch the flu, etc. They just don't know who.
In insurance it's called the Law of Large Numbers.
Hey, one religion on this planet cuts off the hands of thieves. That hasn't stopped people from stealing.
The question a society must ask IMHO is how much are you willing to tolerate?
Conservatives what to preserve the status quo. Progressives want to raise the bar on tolerance.
Then you have the age of consent. In Canada, the age of consent is 14. And Canada has the highest rate of rapes per capita in the Western hemisphere. Good old Canada eh.
It's a difficult question. But that's not the issue.
The issue is whether our trade policies work. And I don't think they do. Thus, "Encircle Microsoft".
Populations have interesting characteristics. In actuarial science the practitioners can tell you within some ridiculously low variance how many houses will burn, how many people will break their arms, have heart attacks, catch the flu, etc. They just don't know who.
In insurance it's called the Law of Large Numbers.
Hey, one religion on this planet cuts off the hands of thieves. That hasn't stopped people from stealing.
The question a society must ask IMHO is how much are you willing to tolerate?
Conservatives what to preserve the status quo. Progressives want to raise the bar on tolerance.
Then you have the age of consent. In Canada, the age of consent is 14. And Canada has the highest rate of rapes per capita in the Western hemisphere. Good old Canada eh.
It's a difficult question. But that's not the issue.
The issue is whether our trade policies work. And I don't think they do. Thus, "Encircle Microsoft".
Wow Dino, This really starts to be a real moot court issue. A strong case could be made that some have the skill set and the equipment to be far safer doing in excess of 80mph on the expressway than the little old man who is doing 55mph. On the other hand it is questionable that anyone is safe at any speed on some urban streets.
One of the big problems is that this judgment is further muddied by the profit motivation for government to nab people solely on the criteria of speed.
One of the big problems is that this judgment is further muddied by the profit motivation for government to nab people solely on the criteria of speed.
jimf and Tom --
You are both getting it:
The measure of a prohibition is in its overall effect on socieity.
No prohibition will eliminate the proscribed behavior. However, if the net result advances societal goals, then the prohibition is a success.
The prohibition against alcohol failed for a number of reasons, not the least being that most people enjoy a drink now and then, without harming themselves or the greater good.
Of course, futile prohibitions are limited to conservative causes. Look at all the cities and states that prohibit handguns and assault weapons, yet seem unable to keep people from getting shot.
You are both getting it:
The measure of a prohibition is in its overall effect on socieity.
No prohibition will eliminate the proscribed behavior. However, if the net result advances societal goals, then the prohibition is a success.
The prohibition against alcohol failed for a number of reasons, not the least being that most people enjoy a drink now and then, without harming themselves or the greater good.
Of course, futile prohibitions are limited to conservative causes. Look at all the cities and states that prohibit handguns and assault weapons, yet seem unable to keep people from getting shot.
When people think a law is stupid, and it's easy to evade, yeah right it's going to be obeyed. And necessary laws are never passed, like the one I keep proposing to my Senators to ban Michael Jackson.
This whole business over "intellectual property rights" and trying to turn every aspect of music and movies into a revenue stream- when you think about something, you have a copy in your memory, so that should cost money too- is beyond ridiculous. If sanity prevails and we return to reasonable Fair Use, I will die of shock. It's not like they're protecting anything original anyway, most popular music and movies are warmed-over to the point of meltdown.
This whole business over "intellectual property rights" and trying to turn every aspect of music and movies into a revenue stream- when you think about something, you have a copy in your memory, so that should cost money too- is beyond ridiculous. If sanity prevails and we return to reasonable Fair Use, I will die of shock. It's not like they're protecting anything original anyway, most popular music and movies are warmed-over to the point of meltdown.
Tuxchick: You nailed it. However, I like the idea of implants of chips in the brain to capture micro-payments for the Rolling Stones. I think we might be able to get the funding from ASCAP.
I also believe that we can ask Bill Gates to call a special session of Congress to get it passed.
Ballmer can have the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case.
Jobs can get the White House to sign.
I can see this working. Absolutely.
I don't think we can arrange for a ban of Michael Jackson since he stills drives revenue.
I also believe that we can ask Bill Gates to call a special session of Congress to get it passed.
Ballmer can have the Supreme Court refuse to hear the case.
Jobs can get the White House to sign.
I can see this working. Absolutely.
I don't think we can arrange for a ban of Michael Jackson since he stills drives revenue.
jimf - I beg to differ: on the mad roads I used to commute to on assignments, both essentially toll roads with very high traffic densities. You had idiots driving well in excess of the of both the posted speed limit changing their velocity* with abandon, hence, barely in control in the event of an unexpected placement of any vehicle. These same idiots would drop their speed well below the posted limit with any sighting of enforcement personnel (state police, etc.) whereas I passed by those enforcers above the posted limit with getting a second look. [Of course, this varies by state and the type of idiots recruited into the enforcers union.]
In Chicago with a V-8 in front and little weight on the rear driving wheels that had a differential cut off on slippage I scared a number of people with the fish tailing this auto was prone to without suffering a forward speed reduction in snow (and some ice). However, with the differential power steering I was quite able to keep control with letting up on the accelerator a bit and only using a light finger touch steering into the skid. Now in the sub-tropics of Central Atlantic state I can barely drive on a street with a light coverage of fresh snow having forgotten all my technique due to lack of practice. Before global warming hit here I wasn't doing that badly even here in the winter.
* (velocity != speed, that is: velocity is a vector it is a combination of speed and direction whereas speed is a scalar (number value only))
In Chicago with a V-8 in front and little weight on the rear driving wheels that had a differential cut off on slippage I scared a number of people with the fish tailing this auto was prone to without suffering a forward speed reduction in snow (and some ice). However, with the differential power steering I was quite able to keep control with letting up on the accelerator a bit and only using a light finger touch steering into the skid. Now in the sub-tropics of Central Atlantic state I can barely drive on a street with a light coverage of fresh snow having forgotten all my technique due to lack of practice. Before global warming hit here I wasn't doing that badly even here in the winter.
* (velocity != speed, that is: velocity is a vector it is a combination of speed and direction whereas speed is a scalar (number value only))
" ban Michael Jackson"
Heck Tuxchick, change 'ban' to 'hang' and i'd support that. :)
One of the basic problems with this 'pass a new law' mentality is that the laws on the books already cover most of it... And, what the hell are we passing laws for business' anyway. Not to mention that those laws are 'always' pro business and anti citizenry. The whole thing stinks.
Heck Tuxchick, change 'ban' to 'hang' and i'd support that. :)
One of the basic problems with this 'pass a new law' mentality is that the laws on the books already cover most of it... And, what the hell are we passing laws for business' anyway. Not to mention that those laws are 'always' pro business and anti citizenry. The whole thing stinks.
jimf: you're right and yes it does. It stinks.
TxtEdMacs, well differ if you want, I drove those same roads for 30 years, about a third of that on a motorcycle. I do agree that a lot of those people do outdistance both their equipment and their skill, but, as your observation proves, speed Prohibition does little to correct the situation. It may actually make the situation worse.
Tuxchick, Tom et al...
The big problem about intellectual property is that it was formulated to serve a societal good: to encourage creators to create and to give their creations to the public domain. That is why -- unlike trade secrets -- publicly created intellectual property has always granted a limited monopoly, both in scope and time, to creators.
Historically, IP has been easy to respect. The first purchase rule said the creator's interest ended when you bought a good. You could pass it around to friends, sit on it, make love to it, do anything but copy it and sell the copy.
Creators made money, lots and lots of great creative works were made and, in due time, passed into the public domain.
Then we started horsing up the laws royally. Copyrights damned near never expire, and, worse, get applied to software, which is more a useful art than a work of authorship.
DMCA adds the reverse-engineering provisions. Patents, shivers.
Crap on it all.
IP is not such a bad construct. Destroying the original contract sucks rocks.
I understand that digital media creates new problems by eliminating duplication costs. I actually even sympathize with creators who want to benefit from their creations.
I hope a good and fair way is found to protect their work.
I would, however, rather ban digital media altogether than see the current assault on our collective rights that the entertainment industry and their mostly Democratic shills have been foisting on us. That, by the way, is something that's really got me bitter. Hey Dems: want to distance yourself from the elephant guys? Here's a great place to do it. Of course, you might royally piss off some rather large contributors...
The big problem about intellectual property is that it was formulated to serve a societal good: to encourage creators to create and to give their creations to the public domain. That is why -- unlike trade secrets -- publicly created intellectual property has always granted a limited monopoly, both in scope and time, to creators.
Historically, IP has been easy to respect. The first purchase rule said the creator's interest ended when you bought a good. You could pass it around to friends, sit on it, make love to it, do anything but copy it and sell the copy.
Creators made money, lots and lots of great creative works were made and, in due time, passed into the public domain.
Then we started horsing up the laws royally. Copyrights damned near never expire, and, worse, get applied to software, which is more a useful art than a work of authorship.
DMCA adds the reverse-engineering provisions. Patents, shivers.
Crap on it all.
IP is not such a bad construct. Destroying the original contract sucks rocks.
I understand that digital media creates new problems by eliminating duplication costs. I actually even sympathize with creators who want to benefit from their creations.
I hope a good and fair way is found to protect their work.
I would, however, rather ban digital media altogether than see the current assault on our collective rights that the entertainment industry and their mostly Democratic shills have been foisting on us. That, by the way, is something that's really got me bitter. Hey Dems: want to distance yourself from the elephant guys? Here's a great place to do it. Of course, you might royally piss off some rather large contributors...
The future: Screw MS, Intel, Hollywood and American record labels. Who needs them anyway, apart from American economy and some bill(ionaire)s?
We'll buy VIA/Godson chips, run Linux and watch Bollywood romances, Chinese action movies, sumo wrestling instead off ballgames, and German comedies (OK, kidding about that last one). Actually, I don't care that much because Hollywood isn't making that great movies the last few years (you should watch a few French movies and the difference, apart from the many naked people in French movies, will be clear soon. I also want to get rid of the MTV pimp/gangsta music with all those hookers , and off course of Celine Dion and Pat Boone badly, so who needs DRMed WMV?).
Please, speaking for all people outside the US: Don't!
Sniff them both, and the difference becomes even clearer.
I think the quote that used to be on the XMMS site says it all:
In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates anyway?
This is also true for Intel, Hollywood et. all.
We'll buy VIA/Godson chips, run Linux and watch Bollywood romances, Chinese action movies, sumo wrestling instead off ballgames, and German comedies (OK, kidding about that last one). Actually, I don't care that much because Hollywood isn't making that great movies the last few years (you should watch a few French movies and the difference, apart from the many naked people in French movies, will be clear soon. I also want to get rid of the MTV pimp/gangsta music with all those hookers , and off course of Celine Dion and Pat Boone badly, so who needs DRMed WMV?).
Quoting:" ban Michael Jackson"
Please, speaking for all people outside the US: Don't!
Quoting:velocity != speed
Sniff them both, and the difference becomes even clearer.
Quoting:That's why I haven't called for a jihad against Microsoft, knowing that the term jihad only applies to Islam.War on MS? Enduring freedom? Invation of the penguins? War on dirty, untransparent, badly isolated windows?
We just don't have a word like that.
I think the quote that used to be on the XMMS site says it all:
In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates anyway?
This is also true for Intel, Hollywood et. all.
hkwint: Could you tell us how you really feel?
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=48457
(Intel to cut Linux out of the content market)
says it all.
I just don't want to be part of it, rather serious above, so that means boycotting Hollywood, Intel and MS.
Anyone not willing to pay to MS or Intel can't watch movies in that scenario. The part about the VIA chip is serious, I already looked for the C7, but can't find it (will call some headquarter maybe). If I can't watch Hollywood films on my Linux box, I just don't watch them, except for going to the movies. If I can't listen to some music on Linux, I'll download it, or don't get it at all.
About IP: Where would the world have been if it was enforced as MS/intel/hollywood wants? If the inventor of the wheel and fire wouldn't have shared their ideas? If the manefacturing process of a car as a whole was patented, and only Ford could make it this way, not willing to let others use that technology? The Americans stole very much IP from Germany (physics for the atom bomb, rocket engine etc). Research at universities would have to been done over and over again. Without sharing IP, a decent OS wouldn't have existed, and neither would WinNT and a lot of other MS stuff. MS wouldn't be that big, because no poor people could work with it.
This all means, for human beings, the idea of competition making the world better and things cheaper sucks (sometimes). Competition leads to war regularly, no matter if thats two countries or gangs or companies. Cooperation has far bigger advantages. Look at science, everything people find out is publicated, and others build forth on it. Much like OS.
says it all.
I just don't want to be part of it, rather serious above, so that means boycotting Hollywood, Intel and MS.
Anyone not willing to pay to MS or Intel can't watch movies in that scenario. The part about the VIA chip is serious, I already looked for the C7, but can't find it (will call some headquarter maybe). If I can't watch Hollywood films on my Linux box, I just don't watch them, except for going to the movies. If I can't listen to some music on Linux, I'll download it, or don't get it at all.
About IP: Where would the world have been if it was enforced as MS/intel/hollywood wants? If the inventor of the wheel and fire wouldn't have shared their ideas? If the manefacturing process of a car as a whole was patented, and only Ford could make it this way, not willing to let others use that technology? The Americans stole very much IP from Germany (physics for the atom bomb, rocket engine etc). Research at universities would have to been done over and over again. Without sharing IP, a decent OS wouldn't have existed, and neither would WinNT and a lot of other MS stuff. MS wouldn't be that big, because no poor people could work with it.
This all means, for human beings, the idea of competition making the world better and things cheaper sucks (sometimes). Competition leads to war regularly, no matter if thats two countries or gangs or companies. Cooperation has far bigger advantages. Look at science, everything people find out is publicated, and others build forth on it. Much like OS.
hkwint --
I'm not as up on this stuff as I should be...
Is this something AMD is supporting as well?
I'm not as up on this stuff as I should be...
Is this something AMD is supporting as well?
Quoting:Is this something AMD is supporting as well?
I'm afraid it is.
hkwint -
Crap. I love AMD processors.
Crap. I love AMD processors.
Looked it up, especially for you.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
This site gives a very frightening look (worst case scenario) into the possible future of Intels/MS' plans with DRM. Since I believe you are a lawyer, I suggest you read the whole story if you have the time, it's really worth it, though that story may be too paranoid. I believe anyone interested in freedom should read it. Anyway, about AMD:
The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is an alliance of Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD which promotes a standard for a `more secure' PC.
AMD is one of the promotor members. They think if they won't follow Intel, they'll lose consumers, and maybe MS support too.
On the other hand, TCG doesn't include all factors for DRM, but the basics are there.
TCG says to be open and able to run on Linux, so it boils down to this: The hardware manufacturers including AMD provide all the necessary hardware, to enable MS to run DRM on TCG platforms. TCG can be used under Linux, but MS DRM can't.
The linked story goes something like this: Because of the alliance of MS and Hollywood, only TCG won't be enough to play Hollywood movies, since TCG doesn't allow to control which software runs and isn't enable to erase files. Microsoft likes to be able to deny non-MS-signed programs to run, since that programs could play un-DRMed content, and the MPAA/RIAA want to be able to delete illegal files/content from the users computer. MS also wants, documents can't be read on another computer. MS' DRM (may) can do all that.
So, according the worst case scenario, MS controls which programs you may run, and Hollywood controls what you look and what you listen. This is a really useful tool for governments, cause, if MS puts a backdoor in the encryption for the NSA or whoever, the government can control what people write, publish and read.
Since I don't want to be part of that future, there's my rant above. There's no other way around than boycotting almost all American content industry, all American hardware OEMS and MS. I'm willing to do that if that's what it takes.
BTW Sun and IBM are TCG promotors too, thats why I talked about the VIA C7 chips.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
This site gives a very frightening look (worst case scenario) into the possible future of Intels/MS' plans with DRM. Since I believe you are a lawyer, I suggest you read the whole story if you have the time, it's really worth it, though that story may be too paranoid. I believe anyone interested in freedom should read it. Anyway, about AMD:
The Trusted Computing Group (TCG) is an alliance of Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD which promotes a standard for a `more secure' PC.
AMD is one of the promotor members. They think if they won't follow Intel, they'll lose consumers, and maybe MS support too.
On the other hand, TCG doesn't include all factors for DRM, but the basics are there.
TCG says to be open and able to run on Linux, so it boils down to this: The hardware manufacturers including AMD provide all the necessary hardware, to enable MS to run DRM on TCG platforms. TCG can be used under Linux, but MS DRM can't.
The linked story goes something like this: Because of the alliance of MS and Hollywood, only TCG won't be enough to play Hollywood movies, since TCG doesn't allow to control which software runs and isn't enable to erase files. Microsoft likes to be able to deny non-MS-signed programs to run, since that programs could play un-DRMed content, and the MPAA/RIAA want to be able to delete illegal files/content from the users computer. MS also wants, documents can't be read on another computer. MS' DRM (may) can do all that.
So, according the worst case scenario, MS controls which programs you may run, and Hollywood controls what you look and what you listen. This is a really useful tool for governments, cause, if MS puts a backdoor in the encryption for the NSA or whoever, the government can control what people write, publish and read.
Since I don't want to be part of that future, there's my rant above. There's no other way around than boycotting almost all American content industry, all American hardware OEMS and MS. I'm willing to do that if that's what it takes.
BTW Sun and IBM are TCG promotors too, thats why I talked about the VIA C7 chips.
Prohibition always fails, because the people who were doing the abhorant behavior were abhorant in the first place.
That's why killing someone by accident isn't murder. It's exactly the same result, someone is dead, yet it is not itself criminal behavior.
People walk away from crashes on the German autobahn at their cars full speed. That doesn't mean it's safe, it means that speed all by itself is not unsafe. Take away speed limits, and most people do indeed find a "safe" speed to travel. Sometimes that speed is slow. It's called a traffic jam.
Every once in a while, in California on the big, straight superhighway called I-5, there will be what are called 'Pile Ups' where hundreds of cars will crash together, killing lots of people, in a domino effect as each car plows into the car in front of it and then becomes a target of the next car.
Why? Fog. People over-estimate how far they can see, and drive too fast to stop (or maybe even see at all) before hitting the stopped car in front of them.
Speed limits are a complete waste of time. I suggest the drivers-side iron spike. If the real threat of death were recognized by drivers, they wouldn't drive fast in fog, they wouldn't tailgate, or pull out in front of on-coming traffic, etc. Riding a motorcycle really brought it home for me, and I am glad to say that in all my years of riding I never met the pavement except with the soles of my boots. Yet.
It's sad to say, but the older I get the slower I drive under any but ideal conditions. Then, it's pedal to the metal. hehehe.
As far as "societal good", here Dino and I part company. "Society" is made up of individuals. Anything that violates individual rights is therefore damaging to society, none more obviously than statute prohibition. If I am not harming or defrauding anyone, it is not a real crime. All prohibition has greater costs than benefits, because by definition prohibition creates victimless crimes.
If the content producer does not want their content copied, they should not release it. A band that plays live cannot be reproduced, they are unique and therefore in great demand, and that is the way musicians have *until the great record labels took over) earned their rewards.
Yes, the present absurdities of copyright laws are what is bringing the issue to a head. "The Mouse Will Never Go Public Domain", but in order to enforce that dictum the public domain is what must be destroyed.
Disney and the other "producers" went to where the power is, and bought some of it for themselves. So does each special interest group. Through interventionist government, we all suffer.
That's why killing someone by accident isn't murder. It's exactly the same result, someone is dead, yet it is not itself criminal behavior.
People walk away from crashes on the German autobahn at their cars full speed. That doesn't mean it's safe, it means that speed all by itself is not unsafe. Take away speed limits, and most people do indeed find a "safe" speed to travel. Sometimes that speed is slow. It's called a traffic jam.
Every once in a while, in California on the big, straight superhighway called I-5, there will be what are called 'Pile Ups' where hundreds of cars will crash together, killing lots of people, in a domino effect as each car plows into the car in front of it and then becomes a target of the next car.
Why? Fog. People over-estimate how far they can see, and drive too fast to stop (or maybe even see at all) before hitting the stopped car in front of them.
Speed limits are a complete waste of time. I suggest the drivers-side iron spike. If the real threat of death were recognized by drivers, they wouldn't drive fast in fog, they wouldn't tailgate, or pull out in front of on-coming traffic, etc. Riding a motorcycle really brought it home for me, and I am glad to say that in all my years of riding I never met the pavement except with the soles of my boots. Yet.
It's sad to say, but the older I get the slower I drive under any but ideal conditions. Then, it's pedal to the metal. hehehe.
As far as "societal good", here Dino and I part company. "Society" is made up of individuals. Anything that violates individual rights is therefore damaging to society, none more obviously than statute prohibition. If I am not harming or defrauding anyone, it is not a real crime. All prohibition has greater costs than benefits, because by definition prohibition creates victimless crimes.
If the content producer does not want their content copied, they should not release it. A band that plays live cannot be reproduced, they are unique and therefore in great demand, and that is the way musicians have *until the great record labels took over) earned their rewards.
Yes, the present absurdities of copyright laws are what is bringing the issue to a head. "The Mouse Will Never Go Public Domain", but in order to enforce that dictum the public domain is what must be destroyed.
Disney and the other "producers" went to where the power is, and bought some of it for themselves. So does each special interest group. Through interventionist government, we all suffer.
Hey Tom Where can I find that info?
Quoting:Consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, but subsequently increased to the highest levels ever seen in the US.
Tom -- did that happen during Prohibition, or subsequent to it?
I've been able to find numbers through 1929, but those levels were still nearly 25% lower ( about 1.2 gallons per capita vs. about 1.6 gpc) than 1910 levels.
It would not surprise me at all to see that drinking went through the roof during the Great Depression...
Actually, alcohol consumption was up during the War, then went down. So, the problem was already in a decline by 1920. It then went down for a short period and started back up.
By 1933 it was at the peak and then started down again.
You'll have to subpeona me for the information. Do you need my last known address?
By 1933 it was at the peak and then started down again.
You'll have to subpeona me for the information. Do you need my last known address?
Two problems with tracking something like drinking through those years. 20-33 it was illegal, 33-46 there was a depression so home brewing and bootlegging to avoid the revenuer were still in full swing.
One factoid I do know, there was a major shift in the form of consumption. Beer was the major American drink prior to prohibition. But beer takes up a lot of room, distilled spirits are far more compact and easy to transport, bigger bang for the cup as it were. Same for the war on some drugs, why move pot when, for the same risk, tens or hundreds of times the money per volume can be carried in cocaine?
One factoid I do know, there was a major shift in the form of consumption. Beer was the major American drink prior to prohibition. But beer takes up a lot of room, distilled spirits are far more compact and easy to transport, bigger bang for the cup as it were. Same for the war on some drugs, why move pot when, for the same risk, tens or hundreds of times the money per volume can be carried in cocaine?
OK.
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157a.gif
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72. Evidence of decreased consumption is provided by two important American economists, Irving Fisher and Clark Warburton.[3] It should be noted that annual per capita consumption and the percentage of annual per capita income spent on alcohol had been steadily falling before Prohibition and that annual spending on alcohol during Prohibition was greater than it had been before Prohibition.[4]
The decrease in quantity consumed needs at least four qualifications--qualifications that undermine any value that a prohibitionist might claim for reduced consumption. First, the decrease was not very significant. Warburton found that the quantity of alcohol purchased may have fallen 20 percent between the prewar years 1911-14 and 1927-30. Prohibition fell far short of eliminating the consumption of alcohol.[5]
Second, consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933.[6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement.[7] That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1, is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.
Third, the resources devoted to enforcement of Prohibition increased along with consumption. Heightened enforcement did not curtail consumption. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 milion during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition averaged over $13 million per year.[8] To those amounts should be added the expenditures of state and local governments.
Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirts as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157b.gif
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Result of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 114-15; and Licensed Beverage Industry, Facts about the Licensed Beverage Industry (New York: LBI, 1961), pp. 54-55.
Now will you please digg this article?
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Preventing_DVD_Playback_on_Linux_...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157a.gif
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Results of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 23-26, 72. Evidence of decreased consumption is provided by two important American economists, Irving Fisher and Clark Warburton.[3] It should be noted that annual per capita consumption and the percentage of annual per capita income spent on alcohol had been steadily falling before Prohibition and that annual spending on alcohol during Prohibition was greater than it had been before Prohibition.[4]
The decrease in quantity consumed needs at least four qualifications--qualifications that undermine any value that a prohibitionist might claim for reduced consumption. First, the decrease was not very significant. Warburton found that the quantity of alcohol purchased may have fallen 20 percent between the prewar years 1911-14 and 1927-30. Prohibition fell far short of eliminating the consumption of alcohol.[5]
Second, consumption of alcohol actually rose steadily after an initial drop. Annual per capita consumption had been declining since 1910, reached an all-time low during the depression of 1921, and then began to increase in 1922. Consumption would probably have surpassed pre-Prohibition levels even if Prohibition had not been repealed in 1933.[6] Illicit production and distribution continued to expand throughout Prohibition despite ever-increasing resources devoted to enforcement.[7] That pattern of consumption, shown in Figure 1, is to be expected after an entire industry is banned: new entrepreneurs in the underground economy improve techniques and expand output, while consumers begin to realize the folly of the ban.
Third, the resources devoted to enforcement of Prohibition increased along with consumption. Heightened enforcement did not curtail consumption. The annual budget of the Bureau of Prohibition went from $4.4 million to $13.4 milion during the 1920s, while Coast Guard spending on Prohibition averaged over $13 million per year.[8] To those amounts should be added the expenditures of state and local governments.
Total Expenditure on Distilled Spirts as a Percentage of Total Alcohol Sales (1890-1960)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/images/pa-157b.gif
Source: Clark Warburton, The Economic Result of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), pp. 114-15; and Licensed Beverage Industry, Facts about the Licensed Beverage Industry (New York: LBI, 1961), pp. 54-55.
Now will you please digg this article?
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Preventing_DVD_Playback_on_Linux_...
Tom --
Yeah, I saw that Cato Institute report, which is why I wondered where you got your info. The statement I quoted isn't supported by the report. Not contradicted, just not supported.
Yeah, I saw that Cato Institute report, which is why I wondered where you got your info. The statement I quoted isn't supported by the report. Not contradicted, just not supported.
What's obvious is that when you impose a prohibition of any type, it creates and economic market so lucrative that it easily entices the bottom feeders of society to take the extreme risks necessary to make their profit.
We see the most extreme examples of this today with the drug trade where the profits and the risks are totally insane. The whole feeds off itself till it becomes a monster that simply can't be stopped.
Media prohibition / restriction may not be quite as dramatic, but the same dynamics pretty much apply. As long as people want something, and you tell them they can't have it, you have an economic market. Some will try to profit by that.
We see the most extreme examples of this today with the drug trade where the profits and the risks are totally insane. The whole feeds off itself till it becomes a monster that simply can't be stopped.
Media prohibition / restriction may not be quite as dramatic, but the same dynamics pretty much apply. As long as people want something, and you tell them they can't have it, you have an economic market. Some will try to profit by that.
What's obvious is that when you impose a prohibition of any type, it creates and economic market...
Taken in its pure context, you sir; have just ended the Microsoft/Linux War. Now all we have to do is encourage MS to bribe more congressmen and Newspaper Editors and make Linux illegal. Little do they realize they will ensure their own destruction.
Which gives me an idea, let me sleep on it and see if it gains "goofy idea" status in the harsh light of morning.
helios
Taken in its pure context, you sir; have just ended the Microsoft/Linux War. Now all we have to do is encourage MS to bribe more congressmen and Newspaper Editors and make Linux illegal. Little do they realize they will ensure their own destruction.
Which gives me an idea, let me sleep on it and see if it gains "goofy idea" status in the harsh light of morning.
helios
Helios: You're heading straight into enemy fire. Please consider flanking them. They big.
helios --
Ummmm....Unless you can start packing Linux in Grey Goose, it might not work as planned....
There is that nettlesome little issue of the demand component.
We're getting closer, but I don't think we've quite reached critical mass yet.
Drive up demand, THEN you prohibit.
Still...Hmmmmmmmmm...Scarface Torvalds...It's got a certain ring to it.
If we get ESR to play, we should have all the firepower we need.
Ummmm....Unless you can start packing Linux in Grey Goose, it might not work as planned....
There is that nettlesome little issue of the demand component.
We're getting closer, but I don't think we've quite reached critical mass yet.
Drive up demand, THEN you prohibit.
Still...Hmmmmmmmmm...Scarface Torvalds...It's got a certain ring to it.
If we get ESR to play, we should have all the firepower we need.
Fire power yes. Led in the pencil, no.
"Taken in its pure context, you sir; have just ended the Microsoft/Linux War"
My God!... You aren't thinking of banning Linux! :D
My God!... You aren't thinking of banning Linux! :D
What about DVD for Linux
Now, we've had some interesting discussions on Freud's favorite subject, repression. What about people using Linux to play DVD's?
Sorry to be a party pooper, but I rarely use the computer for much media. Music is about the limit of what I use Linux for. I don't even have a DVD on the main box. I do however want the option of being able to copy and edit DVD content... Heck, that is only fair, but then when did fair have anything to do with it.
Tom --
What's the question?
As your article points out, there is presently no problem playing DVDs under Linux. Xine works rather nicely. Ogle still works, but goes a little funky running 64 bit.
What's the question?
As your article points out, there is presently no problem playing DVDs under Linux. Xine works rather nicely. Ogle still works, but goes a little funky running 64 bit.
Indeed, I like XINE and use it regularly.
I have several DVDs purchased when I lived in Japan, and without the region-ignoring Linux decoder I would never be able to view them.
Some day I want to put together a media PC, MythTV, XINE, output to the television in the living room, through the stereo, etc. I just hope I come up with the resources to do so before I can no longer legally buy decent hardware or run useful software.
I have several DVDs purchased when I lived in Japan, and without the region-ignoring Linux decoder I would never be able to view them.
Some day I want to put together a media PC, MythTV, XINE, output to the television in the living room, through the stereo, etc. I just hope I come up with the resources to do so before I can no longer legally buy decent hardware or run useful software.
I prefer vlc myself. Works flawlessly and smoothly on both my desktop and laptop (Ubuntu). Just issue
wxvlc dvd:///dev/dvd
or put this in
System --> Preferences --> Removable Drives and Media :see the Multimedia Tab
and it will start when you put in the dvd. Make sure that dma is enabled for your drive and that you use the gtk2 version of wxvlc (much prettier).
wxvlc dvd:///dev/dvd
or put this in
System --> Preferences --> Removable Drives and Media :see the Multimedia Tab
and it will start when you put in the dvd. Make sure that dma is enabled for your drive and that you use the gtk2 version of wxvlc (much prettier).
I've got to second that Richo...been using it for months. I like the skinable version myself. It just gives it a bit more pizazz and flash. It has performed flawlessly for me, especially when other players choke or stutter on a file, VLC takes the ball and runs with it. Great, great piece of work.
1998 + 13 = 2011, 6 years to go
If it took them 13 years last time to figure it out, chances are we still have another 6 years to go until DMCA is scrapped too.
I don't know if I can wait that long.
Someone Slashdotted the wrong article Yikes!!
Playfully Clever submitted a post to Slashdot which made the front page, but it should have gone over to Carla Shroder's article:
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48802/index.html
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48802/index.html
Drat! There went my big chance to finally beat Tom!
;)
;)
I didn't know we were competing. Drat!
/:
/:
Maybe YOU weren't. :)
All your hits are belong to me!
Gatorade, anyone?
All your hits are belong to me!
Gatorade, anyone?
Do our readers realize that we're being slashdotted right now and that the server is taking it even thought the disks are being defragged. Somehow, I don't think we're getting that many hits. So, you can have them. You go girl!
M$ never had to fight for it's position until recently
Apart from a minor skirmish at the outset with Digital Research, where M$ won hands down, they have never had to do any more than stoke their own little fire while waiting for the PC market to get up to size which was always destined to happen after the clone flood of the eighties. The only real threat M$ has faced so far is Linux and that is purely because Linux is not fighting on traditional commercial terms where it would have been forced into bankruptcy or bought out like most everything else before hand. Even IBM took a one-two punch and has, I suspect, having got back on it's feet, learned a thing or two.
The battle is raging for equipment makers - particularly chipsets, and law makers - particularly IP law.
Evan
The battle is raging for equipment makers - particularly chipsets, and law makers - particularly IP law.
Evan
particularly IP law.....
Traditional thinking would steer us into believing that the Sony/BMG mess makes the industry step back concerning DRM, but we are Linux/open source and traditional thinking will get us killed. The rootkit insertion was brazen and unless we continue to make this information known outside the Linux world, THEY are destined to continue unabashed.
Thanks to an active community and a rightful sense of indignation, The MSM had no choice but to run this. It's up to us to make sure the issue doesn't disappear from public view.
Traditional thinking would steer us into believing that the Sony/BMG mess makes the industry step back concerning DRM, but we are Linux/open source and traditional thinking will get us killed. The rootkit insertion was brazen and unless we continue to make this information known outside the Linux world, THEY are destined to continue unabashed.
Thanks to an active community and a rightful sense of indignation, The MSM had no choice but to run this. It's up to us to make sure the issue doesn't disappear from public view.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but didn't a private individual discover the Sony Rootkit?
If I am right, then an entire industry colluded to keep an implementation of corporate spy-ware a secret. an ENTIRE INDUSTRY!!
Sony is not the only one to blame here, what about the anti-virus companies? Why did none of their software pick it up?
How could Microsoft have come up with a fix so fast unless they had prior knowledge?
Thank God I do not buy much new music, if any at all. Music has done what Movies have done in the last twenty years, continually gotten worse, which saves me money:-)
If I am right, then an entire industry colluded to keep an implementation of corporate spy-ware a secret. an ENTIRE INDUSTRY!!
Sony is not the only one to blame here, what about the anti-virus companies? Why did none of their software pick it up?
How could Microsoft have come up with a fix so fast unless they had prior knowledge?
Thank God I do not buy much new music, if any at all. Music has done what Movies have done in the last twenty years, continually gotten worse, which saves me money:-)
The geist moves in mysterious ways
I used the same analogy the other day in the founding meeting of the UK Open Rights Group. See my posting at:
http://skimmed.cream.org/?p=13
http://skimmed.cream.org/?p=13
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
|
|