Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > You lose some, and then you lose some ...

Reply
Thread Tools

You lose some, and then you lose some ...

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
Just saw this report <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523>
about Microsoft Windows Media Player 11, and how its terms and conditions
are even more restrictive than the ones for earlier versions. Basically,
you have no more rights to back up anything at all.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Just saw this report <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523>
> about Microsoft Windows Media Player 11, and how its terms and conditions
> are even more restrictive than the ones for earlier versions. Basically,
> you have no more rights to back up anything at all.


Yet another reason to avoid all DRMéd music stores
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Just saw this report <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523>
> about Microsoft Windows Media Player 11, and how its terms and conditions
> are even more restrictive than the ones for earlier versions. Basically,
> you have no more rights to back up anything at all.


I don't want to start another round of OS Wars - but this is the kind of
thing that made me decide earlier in the year that I won't buy any new
MS products, and I will transfer all our computers to Open Source
software and OS.

I'm not hostile to proprietary programs - I have paid for everything I
have in my two Windows machines. I don't oppose the notion of copyright
- I do oppopse its misapplication where it has no place, and the
surreptitious growth of copyright restrictions that are far beyond the
intention of the Copyright Act, which sets up copyright as a limited
licence for the copyright holder to exploit a created work.

I absolutely reject the idea that any organisation has the right to tell
me how I will use, in my own home and on my computers, products I have
legitmately bought. I reject the idea of a EULA I have to agree to
before I can even look at the product.

I reject the idea that I have only bought a licence to use the software
and that I don't own the individual copy of that product sitting on the
disk in front of me.That's contrary to the WIPO treaties, but the
problem is to find someone with the backing and the clout to take it to
the WTO.

I reject the idea that software and hardware suppliers can, without my
agreement, change aspects of the way I can use their products after I
have paid for them - which is why I'm staying well away from Apple and
all its works, however sniny and fashionable they are.

So far I've done four of six, and it's been less painful than I
expected. The remaining two run a program (radio station playlist
creation and playout) that doesn't have an Open Source equivalent yet.

But it's already being developed...

Philip

 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
In message <4513413c$(E-Mail Removed)>, Philip wrote:

> I reject the idea that I have only bought a licence to use the software
> and that I don't own the individual copy of that product sitting on the
> disk in front of me.That's contrary to the WIPO treaties...


I'd go along with most of what you said, but I'm not sure about this. Even
the GNU General Public License is still a licence, it doesn't give you
ownership of the software, that still resides with the copyright holder(s).

But the GPL does take advantage of that ownership to do good rather than
evil, by trying to ensure that no-one can take away your freedom to do what
you wish with that software.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:49:51 +1200, Philip wrote:

> I don't want to start another round of OS Wars - but this is the kind of
> thing that made me decide earlier in the year that I won't buy any new
> MS products, and I will transfer all our computers to Open Source
> software and OS.
>
> I'm not hostile to proprietary programs - I have paid for everything I
> have in my two Windows machines. I don't oppose the notion of copyright


Do you realise that the Open Source movement believes that Copyright is a
very good thing? The programmes which are written and released under Open
Source are Copyrighted.

Yep, the important bit is in the conditions.

The GPL has conditions attached to it, just like any copyrighted material.
The difference is one can not restrict others freedom even though you may
have modified the software.

So at the end of the day gentle reader, its not about operating system,
but control freaks who want your wallet contents forever.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:13:41 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <4513413c$(E-Mail Removed)>, Philip wrote:
>
>> I reject the idea that I have only bought a licence to use the software
>> and that I don't own the individual copy of that product sitting on the
>> disk in front of me.That's contrary to the WIPO treaties...

>
> I'd go along with most of what you said, but I'm not sure about this. Even
> the GNU General Public License is still a licence, it doesn't give you
> ownership of the software, that still resides with the copyright holder(s).
>

Exactly, but the GPL, says do with the software what you want, but you
must give others the source should they ask for it.

One can take the software and modify to suits ones needs, without giving
the modifed source away, but no third party can be involved.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:04:47 +1200, Gordon wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:49:51 +1200, Philip wrote:
>
>> I don't want to start another round of OS Wars - but this is the kind of
>> thing that made me decide earlier in the year that I won't buy any new
>> MS products, and I will transfer all our computers to Open Source
>> software and OS.
>>
>> I'm not hostile to proprietary programs - I have paid for everything I
>> have in my two Windows machines. I don't oppose the notion of copyright

>
> Do you realise that the Open Source movement believes that Copyright is a
> very good thing? The programmes which are written and released under Open
> Source are Copyrighted.
>
> Yep, the important bit is in the conditions.
>
> The GPL has conditions attached to it, just like any copyrighted material.
> The difference is one can not restrict others freedom even though you may
> have modified the software.
>
> So at the end of the day gentle reader, its not about operating system,
> but control freaks who want your wallet contents forever.

wtf are you talking about? the gpl will *never* cost you a single cent.
Copyright and drm are different. Have you not yet noticed that?

Gentle reader, my a*se. FUD's FUD, however you spin it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
MaHogany
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2006
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:49:51 +1200, Philip wrote:

> I absolutely reject the idea that any organisation has the right to tell
> me how I will use, in my own home and on my computers, products I have
> legitmately bought. I reject the idea of a EULA I have to agree to
> before I can even look at the product.


Of course the GNU General Public Licence is predicated on the notion that
the copyright holder has final say on how licencees use their property.

That is why the GPL has withstood challanges in the court, and that is why
free software will continue to remain free.


Ma Hogany

--
"The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
fries with that, if prompted."

 
Reply With Quote
 
Philip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
Steve wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:04:47 +1200, Gordon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:49:51 +1200, Philip wrote:
>>
>>> I don't want to start another round of OS Wars - but this is the kind of
>>> thing that made me decide earlier in the year that I won't buy any new
>>> MS products, and I will transfer all our computers to Open Source
>>> software and OS.
>>>
>>> I'm not hostile to proprietary programs - I have paid for everything I
>>> have in my two Windows machines. I don't oppose the notion of copyright

>> Do you realise that the Open Source movement believes that Copyright is a
>> very good thing? The programmes which are written and released under Open
>> Source are Copyrighted.
>>
>> Yep, the important bit is in the conditions.
>>
>> The GPL has conditions attached to it, just like any copyrighted material.
>> The difference is one can not restrict others freedom even though you may
>> have modified the software.
>>
>> So at the end of the day gentle reader, its not about operating system,
>> but control freaks who want your wallet contents forever.

> wtf are you talking about? the gpl will *never* cost you a single cent.


I think that's what the man was saying.

This isn't an argument about copyright, it's an argument about abuse of
copyright to impose unwanted, and probably illegal, restrictions on people.

I've made a fair bit of my income over the years producing copyrighted
material, some of whose value to my employers was precisely because it
was copyrighted.

There are people that make a living writing commercial software that
runs on Unix, Linux, and BDS, and VMS and Commodore Basic for all I
know. They are free to do so. There is nothing in the GPL that stops
them doing that. They make their money on service and support. or simply
by selling the right to use the programs.

But the Open Source community, and the GPL, are hostile to exactly the
kind of withdrawal of rights that Apple and Microsoft are imposing on
their customers.

I don't ever want to have my computer tell me I can't do something I
could do yesterday because someone has imposed on me an "upgrade" that
takes away functions I had before. Step forward iTunes. Step forward
Microsoft Media Player. Step forward TiVo.

I prefer the environment offered by Open Source and the GPL. Nothing
will happen on my computer that I haven't agreed to in advance, and had
the option to refuse or undo. That's how it has to be.

Philip



 
Reply With Quote
 
steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-23-2006
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Just saw this report <http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34523>
> about Microsoft Windows Media Player 11, and how its terms and conditions
> are even more restrictive than the ones for earlier versions. Basically,
> you have no more rights to back up anything at all.


As expected.

If content is only available in that format, I'd suggest people simply not
access / use it.

People who want their content SEEN will soon get the message.

Other providers who support more open access will do better.

Look at Google video or YouTube.....why would anyone go to proprietary,
closed sources of video when they can see it easily on YouTube or via
Bittorrent or just rent it at the local DVD shop?









 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Required user to read - then click a checkbox and then a button becomes enabled. Mufasa ASP .Net 7 09-04-2007 06:04 PM
Can you go lens... then Circular Polarizer Fitler... then "Petal" type hood? Ryan Bygland Digital Photography 14 01-14-2007 08:32 PM
How does one play a .wav file and then another and then another...? ted.j.conway@gmail.com Javascript 4 01-17-2006 03:28 AM
Help. SessionID is x then y then x then y BodiKlamph@gmail.com ASP General 0 09-03-2005 03:02 PM
Help: anyway to burn movie to DVD RW (then view it) and then eraseafterward? qwerty DVD Video 6 01-07-2004 04:54 AM



Advertisments