Linux-Advocacy Digest #766, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:51 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar
[...]
>>Yet it seems obvious there is something incompatible between copyright
>>and the Internet. I haven't actually found one, yet, but it does seem
>>like there must be something. I mean, the *entirety* of copyright can't
>>simply be a mechanism for maintaining the price of intellectual property
>>above competitive levels.
>
>There is. The Internet is the essence of copying -- data, pictures,
>etc. Not in an illegal fashion, mind you -- but digital data and software
>are infinitely duplicable, with no loss of quality (I'm not even sure how
>one would require that a software development engineer for a MP3 player
>put in code to limit the number of plays). The problem is that copyright
>law was written before costs dropped to near zero (the only thing paid for
>is the size of the datapipe). It definitely needs rework; however, the laws
>must be enforced as currently written prior to that rework. (Good luck
>on that, admittedly.)
>
>It might need a *lot* of rework.
Actually, I figure that in the end it requires almost no rework, but
simple regression. The accumulated kludges attached to copyright law
since the dawn of 'phonorecording machines' must be stripped away. It
is obvious that mankind has an unlimited and voracious appetite, in fact
a real need, for entertainment and information. These technologies do,
as you noted, drop the cost of reproduction and distribution of
so-called media presentations to near zero. But never zero; therefore,
there is a profit to be made.
[...]
>>And as far as the "legal details" are
>>concerned, I've given up on pretending that lawyers understand
>>abstractions. The natural state of intellectual works are "fair use";
>>anything not explicitly made illegal is legal. And the only thing that
>>is made illegal is depriving the author of profit (commercial copying);
>>personal copying doesn't do that. And even the
>>one-to-one-million-due-to-the-wonders-of-the-Internet doesn't mean you
>>get to suddenly change the rules.
>
>I'm not quite sure how one "deprives an author of profit" anyway.
By stealing his works. But this only occurs when you take someone's
original, personal work of intellectual property and make a profit on
it, thus treating it like your own and depriving the author of profit.
But that's only the real physical author; not the legal abstraction of
author, necessarily.
The jist is, if you are *selling* reproductions of an author's work and
he doesn't get a cut, you are literally depriving him of his profit,
because the Constitution clearly states he doesn't just have a right to
profit, he has an *exclusive* right to profit, from his work. It is the
only way to have any IP protection at all, and the little guy still
needs IP protection against the big guy, even if the big guy doesn't
necessarily merit protection against the little guy. ;-)
>Of course, I'm not quite sure why one should encourage rampant theft
>of a work, either -- assuming the concept even makes sense in an
>infinitely duplicable digital medium.
The Internet obviously commoditizes distribution. The question is
whether it commoditizes the intellectual property itself. Interesting
times, certainly.
[...]
>Mind you, this is a nation who writes PIN numbers on the backs of
>debit cards. I'll leave the explanation as to why this is extremely
>stupid to the interested researcher. :-) And people lose house keys
>all the time.
>
>Hmmm.....
See; no amount of technology can correct the problem that technology
causes. The IP can always be extracted from the file, and copied into a
new unsigned file. Some small token expense to justify some arbitrary
but entirely unobtrusive (in fact, pathetically weak) method of
"licensing" might eventually be worked up, and everyone will just pay
that small cost (born by the owner and used to justify the price to the
consumer). Nobody *wants* to copy IP or give it away. *Anyone* would
rather pay for it! That way, you can insist that it be worth the cost,
and complain about the quality or fidelity or whatever, demand it be
supplied in the most convenient package, and have some basis for
determining what IP you would like to be produced in the future.
The problem is, business who've made outrageous profits due to the
expense of distribution now pretend that production is threatened if
they don't maintain those outrageous profits, now that the cost which
most burdens the individual consumer, the distribution costs, are
evaporating. Individual consumers, normally more than happy, even
eager, to buy numerous copies of various IP, find that they are not
willing to pay so much for so little, and blithely "violate copyright"
by using a more effective, and much less efficient, method of
distribution without the artificially inflated costs.
[...]
>>>So yes, it's illegal according to current copyright law. Is
>>>it enforceable? Far from clear.
>>
>>A law which is not enforceable is not, itself, legal. Needing
>>permission to exercise your rights is the same as not having rights.
>
>I'll agree with that. The whole notion of "fair compensation" bothers
>me anyway (who decides what's fair?). Same issue as your "reasonable"
>comment(s), above.
What notion of "fair compensation" are you referring to? Any use of the
term "fair" certainly requires the same self-evident consideration as
"reason" (if you understand it, you agree with it), if that's the
comment you were addressing. But I honestly don't know what notion of
fair compensation you are bothered by; please explain.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:52 GMT
Said Scott Gardner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 03:55:34
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The RIAA does indeed "worry about" individual acts of copying, or
>>Napster wouldn't be having legal problems. Napster doesn't make any
>>copies or distribute any copies. People who get MP3s from Napster are
>>the ones doing the copying; not the owners of the hard drive file which
>>they're copying. Obviously, the 'permission' to copy is implicit, so
>>those providing files are as liable as those receiving. Still, to
>>declare that the issue is simple is to prove you've misunderstood it.
>
>I think of Napster the same way I think of the owner of a bar that
>knows full well there are drug deals going down in his bathrooms and
>prostitution going on in his parking lot, but pleads "Hey, I'm just
>here to sell drinks!" Napster has known all along what its service
>was predominantly being used for, and it wasn't to allow unsigned
>artists to get their music out into the mainstream. By allowing
>anyone to anonymously log on and download songs as an alternative to
>buying the music, they are facilitating and promoting theft, no matter
>what their service's original or stated intent is.
"Theft"? That's bullshit. There's no reason to believe that anyone who
downloaded any MP3s would have bought the stupid CD if Napster had not
been available. It is not Napster's fault that their technology busts
up the little profiteering scam the record companies and overpaid
musicians (?) have had going.
*MAYBE* if they'd been selling MP3s themselves, they might have a point.
But they're not, because that, too, would require an honest business
model with a value add that earns a profit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:53 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 10 Mar 2001 05:28:24
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:44:07 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Mar 2001 10:49:23
>>>On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:17:39 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>
>>And you wonder why people accuse you of being a Microsoft hack with
>>barely a pretense of sheepskin to hide your trolling. Here's why. I
>>noticed it in the previous five posts of yours I read as well, Donovan,
>>but a managed to talk myself out of responding.
>
>My contributions to Linux speak for themselves. (You should be able to
>find them in any up to date distribution). How ironic that my accusers
>don't contribute anything but insults and poor manners. For all their
>whining, their words and deeds are of little consequence and will do
>nothing to challenge the "evil Microsoft monopoly" that they whine about.
Your contributions to Linux speak elsewhere, and it is unsurprising
that, while accused simply of being wrong, you consider all your
accusers to be biased and declare they contribute nothing but insults
and poor manners. For all your talk about the "whining", you seem to do
about as much as Erik Funkenbusch and Chad Myers, yourself. All you
seem to do is whine about how other people should be as ignorant as you
three about the Microsoft monopoly.
>I on the other hand make an effort to try and make Linux into a usable
>platform. The difference between me and my accusers is that my contributions
>to Linux have substance, while they on the other hand contribute nothing
>but hot air.
No, the difference is that I am aware of something you are not,
apparently: for all your contribution, your whining and deeds are of
little consequence and will do nothing to challenge the "evil Microsoft
monopoly" that you pretend to recognize, but obviously do not
understand.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:55 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:22:40
>"Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97ja2v$ogg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my desktop
>> > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to shoot
>> > myself if I did.
>>
>> Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant and
>> make him use Solaris/CDE.
>>
>> -Ed
>
>Let the record show the kind of immature childish assholes I attempt to
>engage in an intelligent debate with.
Well, either it didn't work, or Chad was lying again.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:56 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 18:43:13
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 15:34:48 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>Bill Gates used resources of the Harvard computer center
>>to run a business, and got his wrists slapped.
>>Looks like he won't get even a wrist slapping this time.
>>What a travesty. The most nauseating worms are the
>>slipperiest.
>
>OTOH, the timing of the case could not have been better -- it's
>forced them to back off, and this has probably made it easier
>for Linux to drum up third party support. For example, over the
>last few years, several hardware vendors and OEMs have announced
>Linux support. This would have been a more difficult choice if
>they'd been threatened.
>
>While I've rejected the arguments that their prices are excessive,
>there is little doubt in my mind that they were an abusive monopoly.
>(For example, strong arming the OEMs was a severe restrraint of trade)
My point on that argument, Donovan, has been that simple logic proves
that having higher prices than would normally be possible is one of the
abuses of any monopoly. It requires no *plan* on Microsoft's part to
maintain prices above competitive levels; it is a natural result of
having 95% of market share due to anti-competitive, rather than
pro-competitive, reasons. In a free market, the only way to have that
kind of market share is to be the cheapest by far and the best for
almost everybody. MS software crashes too much to be even worth
competitive levels, but we can't know what those are, due to their
illegal monopoly, which prevents their prices from being set by market
levels the way everything you know about business tells you they must
inherently be set for MS to make money. It isn't even so much they
break those rules, as those rules only exist in competitive markets to
begin with.
You see what I'm saying?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:57 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>says...
>
>>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
>
>Probably. But it will be harder for them to do so. Locking someone out
>is easier if they aren't already "in". And they are not going to try
>competing with Linux on price any time soon.
What difference does it make how "hard" it will be for them, given
monopoly is an all-or-nothing proposition, by nature? If they can do
it, it will work, and they never have competed with Linux on price,
despite your observation that a Linux boxed set can be bought at retail
for the upgrade cost to MS's newest crashware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:05:59 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Mar 2001 22:40:56
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:47:20 -0700, Dave wrote:
>>On 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>says...
>>>
>>>>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
>>
>>It's already begun. Trial or not, Microsoft just can't afford to let
>>linux get any more of a foothold.
>
>Well that's almost my point -- only I think Linux has more of a foothold
>than they could afford to let it have.
With all due respect, Mr. Rebbechi, to your own contributions and those
of so many others, the pace of development isn't fast enough having to
scrabble and scrape against the monopoly to do anyone but you developers
yourselves any good. I'm simply hoping that PC technology catches up to
last year's promises some time in the next decade, and then progressing
from there to the point where someone as brainless as even I can get
something more than a really expensive email client that doesn't crash
on too many games. I'm afraid the Linux community is as much a victim
of the regression of technology as some poor dweeb running Windows ME,
in the larger scope of things.
Imagine what one *months* worth of Windows revenues would fund in terms
of open source development! Maybe I'm just dreaming, but even us people
who can't program should be able to get some worthwhile automation set
up without having to cobble things together like tinkertoys. It seems
to me that the PC revolution was supposed to be all about non-developers
and starting without the more arcane parts of "big iron" computer
systems. I'm a huge fan of Linux, don't get me wrong; Unix is a great
thing, in general. But I can't help but think that in the real world,
had it not been for massive domination by a monopoly, we'd have gotten
something more than a foothold for a host-oriented OS running on
IBM/Intel clones.
>> I suspect that the recent
>>open-source comment by Allchin was an initial probe to see what they
>>could get away with on the PR front.
>
>I doubt it. Microsoft have been fudding for the last year or so, and
>Allchin's FUD is basically mor eof the same. The main difference is
>that he isn't even *trying* to FUD on techical grounds which makes
>it look like an act of desperation. You can tell a man's down when he
>wraps himself in the flag like that ...
Well, *you* can, maybe, but the bulk of the population aren't so
insightful, I'm afraid. Not that anyone believes the FUD, of course,
but whether its an act of desperation or merely continued aggression is
more debatable.
>>I can think of ways they could do linux in, that would be in keeping
>>with past Microsoft strategies. How about launching a patent-violation
>>lawsuit and demanding that linux be removed from all computers unless
>>some absurd royalty is paid?
>
>The problem is that lawsuits are local, but Linux is not. Their hands
>are tied.
FUD is global. It would be a perfectly effective attack, I think, if MS
is not dealt with by the US gov't in the incisive way that only they can
(if the Supreme Court agrees they can - I think the Appellate Court
handed MS's lawyers the justification they needed, but weren't aware of,
evidently, when they pointed out that no company not created by
acquisition had ever been broken up.)
>>corporations trying to decide whether to switch. Or, any hardware
>>manufacturer cooperating with the linux community on drivers might
>>find themselves left out of future releases of Windows.
>
>They could try it, but it wouldn't be very effective, because it's
>not that difficult or unusual for the user to install from a disk
>(indeed, it's necessary if the user's hardware postdates their Windows
>version). Because of this, the add-hardware wizard plays nice by
>inviting the user to enter their driver disk.
By such reasoning MS argues that simply not using IE is sufficient to
make harmless their cutting off of Netscape's air supply. The strategy
is not one of competitive merit, and so your explanation of how attempts
to compete might deal with it are correct, but that ignores the
anti-competitive effect, similar to the "local lawsuit - global FUD"
issue.
>>Personally I hope MS tries something like this. The backlash would be
>>spectacular!
>
>I agree. I'm not saying they won't try it, I'm saying that they wouldn't
>enjoy a great deal of success if they did.
You probably wouldn't have predicted a great deal of success for their
attempts to kill Java. By some reasoning, obviously, such attempts
failed: Java is certainly a going concern. But did it or does it
threaten the monopoly? Certainly not, though the fact that it isn't
supported by the monopoly certainly threatens it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:06:00 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 04:54:09
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 04:19:46 GMT, mmnnoo wrote:
>
>>I don't agree that Slashdot is associating napster with open source
>>just by taking an interest in both. Slashdot reflects opinions about
>
>No, in some articles, the editors associated Napster with Open Source
>by associating it with Open Source.
>
>By the way, I also think it reflects badly on Linux that what is often
>cited as a major Linux site takes a strong pro-piracy position.
Paradigm shifts are scary things.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
