OK, Matt. I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2007 6:22 AM EDT |
I thought the NYT piece was fine. Like most newspaper pieces, it was written to fill a certain amount of space, so you can not reasonably expect a dissertation on the finer points. It had nice things to say. It mentioned the warnings from automatix. It didn't say that you were violating any laws. it said that automatix generates ominous warnings. It also said that you could ignore the warnings and everything would install just fine. As to installing linux, I would also agree that downloading the files and installing from scratch is the hardest way to do it. I've had more than a few times when I had to study a download page carefully to make sure I was getting the version I wanted, and I've been building my own Linux boxes for nearly ten years now. One more thing -- When it comes to lazy reporting and not knowing what you're talking about, you really should follow your own advice. Quoting: With restricted codecs, the only time it is going to find themselves in actionable legal trouble is if they are distributing said codecs without paying the patent fees to the appropriate parties. Patents are not the only, likely not even the biggest concern. Software is protected by copyright. It may or may not be covered by patents. A picky point - but you had already set a picky standard, so it's ok As a practical matter, you are correct, however. Playing DVD's with "illegal" libraries doesn't leave any kind of footprint. Technically speaking, you would be in violation of the copyright act because DVD's are authorized to be played via approved software, but... Personally, I don't care, and I think the biggest risk you would ever face is if somebody put up a honeypot site distributing libdvdcss and tracked the downloads. Seems like a bunch of hoo-ha to me. Besides, even if somebody did that, presuming you had no illegal copies of DVDs, they would have to convince a jury that a) you broke the law, and b) there was something wrong with breaking the law. Methinks, in this kind of situation, b would be tough. I'm a guessin' any legal threats would have the sole target of scaring you into settlement. |
| tuxchick Dec 03, 2007 10:57 AM EDT |
Haha! So I'm not the only one who slips and reads the occasional MH piece, even though I repeatedly vow not to! |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2007 12:19 PM EDT |
TC - Guilty as charged. Never said I was really, really smart. |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2007 8:33 AM EDT |
> Never said I was really, really smart. No. Merely always right. :) Which is admittedly close enough to the truth that we let you get away with it. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2007 9:50 AM EDT |
>No. Merely always right. :) No -- Merely brilliant, not infallible. Which is different from really, really smart, a status which can be acquired by working hard and paying attention. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!