Vista I will not be buying

Leythos wrote:
In article , aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
Even so, the music
industry is making trillions of dollars every year.

Looks like you have a problem with any company making LOTS of money,
no wonder you an Kurt get along soooo well.

LOL! And you have no problem seeing companies suckering people to make
there money.

They can only make money if customers support them.

With trade organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA, they act like
trusts giving consumers little alternative than buying their BS. If we
had a government that wasn't bought and paid for by these colluding
trusts, and truely look out for the consumers welfare, there'd be laws
that regulated these 21st Century Trusts!

I seem to remember that competition was supposed to regulate the abuses
of consumers by businesses, but these colluding trusts, have broken the
check and balance of competitions protection of consumers.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Leythos" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

I guess I look at it like this - you said "will prevent someone
from "sharing"... won't prevent the real thieves.....

I don't see the difference between someone "sharing" a file
against licensing rules and and pirates that copy entire CD's and
sell them to kids.

I'm sorry that you don't see the difference, but it is
perfectly obvious
to the rest of us. The first could easily be a legal example of
fair use. The second is clearly illegal.

Actually, I see the difference, but I disagree that there is a
"real" difference. I don't see any "real" difference between two
kids making copies of CD's and giving the copy to the other and a
pirate making a copy and selling it to anyone. In both cases there
was an unpaid for copy entering the market.

The two kids making copies of CD's and giving the copy to the
other could be an example of legally permissible fair use. For
example, the second copy could be for a legitimate research purpose
or for nonprofit educational purposes.

No, fair use does not permit making a copy for a friend - it does
permit making a copy for backup for yourself, but not a backup copy
for anyone else.

It's exactly because it is hard to tell the real difference
between these two cases that it's impossible for an automated
mechanism to prevent only illegal copying.

It's only hard to tell the difference if you care - since they are
both wrong there is no reason to worry about it, they are both wrong
and that makes them both in violation.

If you don't see the difference between legal conduct and
illegal conduct, your opinion that the software will only prevent
conduct that is illegal is quite meaningless, no?

But I do understand your position, I just don't see it in "degrees"
of being legal or not - making a copy for a friend is just as much
illegal as is selling a copy.

If you are making a copy for a friend to use for a nonprofit
research purpose, it's not illegal. There are no degrees of legal or
not, fair use is legal, period.

Sorry, I don't see anything that indicates making a COPY for anyone,
other than for backup of your own media for your OWN backup, is legal.

Actually the sharing within a household was considered in the Betamax
case. So individuals sharing within a household is legal.

Also "fair use" would cover me taking an eight second clip of music and
using it in my rap track. How is MS's gestapo code gonna know to allow
me to use such a clip?


If the software blocks it, more power to it, as
long as the software doesn't keep me from playing while doing so
according to the sellers rules. Software won't prevent it, as others
have mentioned, it will just make it harder for the "casual" thief
to do it, which means that less people will become thieves.

So it is now your position that it the software will block some
legal activity and that this is perfectly fine with you? That is not
the position you took previously.

That's not what I specifically said. I said that I don't see any
examples of it impacting people that follow the rules, so it's not an
issue. I can also imagine that there will be problems, but that I'm
sure there will be a means to resolve legitimate use problems that
impact the small percentage of users.

Ignore it, like MS already does with those with PA & WGA problems.

Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring the human
trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly possible to help
the Hurricane victims! Hell even Fox News correspondents have tears in
their eyes when talking to all the black people ignored in the projects
the last three days.

The Big Brothers of this world ignore the problems of the little people
until it gets so big that they can't anymore. Well the more code and
sh*t that MS adds to computing to limit personal choice, the more likely
they'll have to face a big problem with it in the future. As it is, MS
is making Linux look more and more attractive every day. You won't need
to worry about your OS screwing you out of your "fair use," because that
same use may also be used by pirates.

And shareholders are losing dividends over developing this sh*t, that
does nothing for the consumer but make computing harder!

So Fistula is an unwanted hole that adds some eye-candy and more
limitations on consumers. NT5.666! Tell me, why would anyone really
want that? Why would you want it, an OS that adds a lot of useless
sh*t, that is of absolutely no use to you, the end user, that limits
what you can and can't do with YOUR copies of copyrighted material?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring the
human trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly possible
to help the Hurricane victims!

You really have no clue - do you really think that he's out of touch
when he's not in the white-house? Do you really think that he doesn't
have a group of advisors to communicate with all over the country for
all sorts of subjects....

Going back to the white-house and flying over the areas doesn't do
anything other than put a political spin on it so that people like you
can feel better that he's in his "place". In reality, he could run the
entire thing efficiently from just about anywhere in the country.

Again, you are so predictable! You totally ignore the majority of my
post that was on topic, only to answer my bait. This demonstrates that
all you are doing is being disputatious, and could really care less
about the topic of this thread.

You are just in this thread to be disruptive, and your actions prove it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:46:32 GMT, Leythos wrote:


I do know that there is no difference between making a copy for a friend
and selling a copy to a friend - either case, the vendor doesn't get any
money for the product.

That why I like freeware and open source you can do that.

What about sharing or loaning?

If you have a music cd. You give a friend the music cd to listen to.
I see nothing wrong with that. That what I think of file sharing
there is no difference. I don't use a file sharing program.


Greg Ro

"Leythos" wrote in message
...

The two kids making copies of CD's and giving the copy to the other
could be an example of legally permissible fair use. For example, the
second
copy could be for a legitimate research purpose or for nonprofit
educational
purposes.

No, fair use does not permit making a copy for a friend - it does permit
making a copy for backup for yourself, but not a backup copy for anyone
else.

That's just plain not true. Again, since you have demonstrated that you
have no idea what legal and illegal uses are, your opinion that the software
will only prevent illegal uses is of no value to anyone. See, for example,
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It's exactly because it is hard to tell the real difference between
these two cases that it's impossible for an automated mechanism to
prevent
only illegal copying.

It's only hard to tell the difference if you care - since they are both
wrong there is no reason to worry about it, they are both wrong and that
makes them both in violation.

Umm, huh? In violation of what?

If you don't see the difference between legal conduct and illegal
conduct, your opinion that the software will only prevent conduct that
is
illegal is quite meaningless, no?

But I do understand your position, I just don't see it in "degrees" of
being legal or not - making a copy for a friend is just as much illegal
as is selling a copy.

If you are making a copy for a friend to use for a nonprofit research
purpose, it's not illegal. There are no degrees of legal or not, fair use
is
legal, period.

Sorry, I don't see anything that indicates making a COPY for anyone,
other than for backup of your own media for your OWN backup, is legal.

It is not my problem that you don't understand copyright law and haven't
the slightest clue what you're talking about. I suggest you do some research
and read 17 USC 107. I will helpfully provide you a link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

They key point: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and
106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction
in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section,
for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright."

Perhaps we can have a meaningful debate once you have the slightest clue
what you're talking about.

If the software blocks it, more power to it, as
long as the software doesn't keep me from playing while doing so
according to the sellers rules. Software won't prevent it, as others
have mentioned, it will just make it harder for the "casual" thief to
do
it, which means that less people will become thieves.

So it is now your position that it the software will block some legal
activity and that this is perfectly fine with you? That is not the
position
you took previously.

That's not what I specifically said. I said that I don't see any
examples of it impacting people that follow the rules, so it's not an
issue.

So now you *are* saying the software can tell the difference between
legal and illegal use? Or by "follow the rules" do you mean something other
than the rules codified in copyright law?

I can also imagine that there will be problems, but that I'm sure
there will be a means to resolve legitimate use problems that impact the
small percentage of users.

The fact that you are sure (for no reason whatsoever) that there won't
be problems doesn't mean anything to the people who are specifically trying
to point out to you what the problems are going to be.

I don't think you have any conception of any of the following factors:

1) What copyright law actually does and does not allow.

2) What DRM and comparable software technologies actuall do.

As such, it's utterly pointless to have a debate with you. Responses
such as "I'm sure there will be a means to resolve" a problem, without any
clue as to what the means will be or an understanding of what the problem is
are not of any value.

DS

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring the
human trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly
possible to help the Hurricane victims!

You really have no clue - do you really think that he's out of touch
when he's not in the white-house? Do you really think that he
doesn't have a group of advisors to communicate with all over the
country for all sorts of subjects....

Going back to the white-house and flying over the areas doesn't do
anything other than put a political spin on it so that people like
you can feel better that he's in his "place". In reality, he could
run the entire thing efficiently from just about anywhere in the
country.

Again, you are so predictable! You totally ignore the majority of my
post that was on topic, only to answer my bait. This demonstrates
that all you are doing is being disputatious, and could really care
less about the topic of this thread.

You are just in this thread to be disruptive, and your actions prove
it.

No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and you
know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions, there
was nothing in your post that was new or different except the above -
so it was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't changing.

I can actually smell your bullsh*t!

You have no point, just arguing for the sake of it. And your actions
proved it.

Like Bush's actions of staying on vacation while the Gulf devolves into
choas! If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a source of humor that it
took 3 f#*king days before his administration got going on Katrina! All
of the cabinet members should have gotten together at least two days
ago! But this administration is lead by the example of GWB. Let's sit
around with our thumbs up our asses for a couple of days before we do
anything!

And GWB cares about the American people as much as MS cares about its
customers. Instead of creating a more secure OS from malware, MS goes
and makes an OS that secures our copies of copyright material from how
we want to use it in the privacy of our own homes!

And instead of understanding how this affects real people, you sit back
an apologize for MS, while not have any rational argument. You just
slobber on about it only inconveniences pirates, which any rational
human being can see is just bullsh*t! We already have examples how
usage-limiting technologies affect legitimate users more than real
pirates, with PA, WGA, copy-protected Music CDs . . . .

But you know you really don't have a good argument so you grab any
off-topic shread just to divert attention to your lack of a real
argument! You care more about the cock-sucker-in-chief, and Microsoft
than you do real people! And you only aim in these arguments is to
protect the asses you love to kiss at any cost.

So you've been outed. You have no real argument in favor of MS's
Fistula usage-limiting technology nonsense. You are just trying to
frustrate those that have valid arguments against what MS is doing. You
are just MS's toady!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Leythos" wrote in message
...

No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and you
know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions, there was
nothing in your post that was new or different except the above - so it
was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't changing.

I think there's a very real chance that if you understood the issue,
your opinion would change significantly. I may not be right, but at least
there's hope.

The key points that you don't seem to understand a

1) Copyright law contains powerful exceptions that grant quite a few
rights to the general public.

2) Copyright holders would love the power to restrict these rights, but
the copyright law doesn't provide it to them.

3) DRM technologies do not enforce copyright laws, they enforce whatever
policies the content provider sets. They do not care if there is any legal
authority for the policy or not.

4) Copyright holders see DRM technologies as the way to get *new* rights
that they do not currently have. They want technically what they cannot get
legally.

5) Commercial piracy is the excuse used to justify forcing the
technology on people. But the law already provides solutions to these types
of problems.

The fact that you would make an argument as irrelevent as "people who
aren't doing anything illegal will have nothing to worry about" proves that
you don't even understand what any of the issues are. It would be the
gravest pessimism to believe that your opinions wouldn't change at all, even
if you had a clue what you're talking about.

You may have that low an opinion of yourself, but my opinion of you
hasn't sunk that much yet.

DS

David Schwartz wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...

No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and
you know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions,
there was nothing in your post that was new or different except the
above - so it was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't
changing.

I think there's a very real chance that if you understood the
issue, your opinion would change significantly. I may not be right,
but at least there's hope.

The key points that you don't seem to understand a

1) Copyright law contains powerful exceptions that grant quite a
few rights to the general public.

2) Copyright holders would love the power to restrict these
rights, but the copyright law doesn't provide it to them.

3) DRM technologies do not enforce copyright laws, they enforce
whatever policies the content provider sets. They do not care if
there is any legal authority for the policy or not.

4) Copyright holders see DRM technologies as the way to get *new*
rights that they do not currently have. They want technically what
they cannot get legally.

5) Commercial piracy is the excuse used to justify forcing the
technology on people. But the law already provides solutions to these
types of problems.

The fact that you would make an argument as irrelevent as "people
who aren't doing anything illegal will have nothing to worry about"
proves that you don't even understand what any of the issues are. It
would be the gravest pessimism to believe that your opinions wouldn't
change at all, even if you had a clue what you're talking about.

You may have that low an opinion of yourself, but my opinion of you
hasn't sunk that much yet.

DS

Let it sink. Leythos is an ally of the corporate copyright trusts, and
an enemy of real people and their rights to their copies of software,
and will say and do anything to apologize for his corporate copyright
Big Brothers.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"kurttrail" wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring the
human trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly
possible to help the Hurricane victims!

You really have no clue - do you really think that he's out of touch
when he's not in the white-house? Do you really think that he
doesn't have a group of advisors to communicate with all over the
country for all sorts of subjects....

Going back to the white-house and flying over the areas doesn't do
anything other than put a political spin on it so that people like
you can feel better that he's in his "place". In reality, he could
run the entire thing efficiently from just about anywhere in the
country.

Again, you are so predictable! You totally ignore the majority of my
post that was on topic, only to answer my bait. This demonstrates
that all you are doing is being disputatious, and could really care
less about the topic of this thread.

You are just in this thread to be disruptive, and your actions prove
it.

No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and you
know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions, there
was nothing in your post that was new or different except the above -
so it was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't changing.

I can actually smell your bullsh*t!

You have no point, just arguing for the sake of it. And your actions
proved it.

Like Bush's actions of staying on vacation while the Gulf devolves into
choas! If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a source of humor that it
took 3 f#*king days before his administration got going on Katrina! All
of the cabinet members should have gotten together at least two days
ago! But this administration is lead by the example of GWB. Let's sit
around with our thumbs up our asses for a couple of days before we do
anything!

And GWB cares about the American people as much as MS cares about its
customers. Instead of creating a more secure OS from malware, MS goes
and makes an OS that secures our copies of copyright material from how
we want to use it in the privacy of our own homes!

And instead of understanding how this affects real people, you sit back
an apologize for MS, while not have any rational argument. You just
slobber on about it only inconveniences pirates, which any rational
human being can see is just bullsh*t! We already have examples how
usage-limiting technologies affect legitimate users more than real
pirates, with PA, WGA, copy-protected Music CDs . . . .

But you know you really don't have a good argument so you grab any
off-topic shread just to divert attention to your lack of a real
argument! You care more about the cock-sucker-in-chief, and Microsoft
than you do real people! And you only aim in these arguments is to
protect the asses you love to kiss at any cost.

So you've been outed. You have no real argument in favor of MS's
Fistula usage-limiting technology nonsense. You are just trying to
frustrate those that have valid arguments against what MS is doing. You
are just MS's toady!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Hello Kurt, Please take care, try not to become so angry that it becomes a
health issue.
I appreciate your postings and would like to have you around for a long time.

The U.S. Presidents' (shrub, "Texas nickname") administration is simple
inept and greedy. A bad combination.
With Microsoft it may be a combination of misdirected self protection and
appeasment to other power groups. If they do not scrap, hope that they can
design a opt out option.

One should remember that some cannot admit to themselves let alone others
that they misjudged and/or made a mistake, some lack the intellectual
capacity and some are just corrupt.

take care.
beamish.

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 09:52 am, Leythos had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

In article , aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
only law-abiding people will get screwed.

And for some computer users, that will be the only sex they've had in
years


Speaking for yourself?

No, I've been married for over 20 years, what's sex

If you happen to remember, please let me know. :-)


--
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 03:58 pm, Leythos had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

In article ,
says...
Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring the human
trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly possible to help
the Hurricane victims!

You really have no clue - do you really think that he's out of touch
when he's not in the white-house? Do you really think that he doesn't
have a group of advisors to communicate with all over the country for
all sorts of subjects....

Going back to the white-house and flying over the areas doesn't do
anything other than put a political spin on it so that people like you
can feel better that he's in his "place". In reality, he could run the
entire thing efficiently from just about anywhere in the country.


That's assuming the moron has an IQ of at least that of the common house
cat. Which he so obviously does not.


--
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.

beamish wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Like Bush staying on vacation for the last three days ignoring
the human trajedy in the Gulf, instead doing EVERYTHING humanly
possible to help the Hurricane victims!

You really have no clue - do you really think that he's out of
touch when he's not in the white-house? Do you really think that
he doesn't have a group of advisors to communicate with all over
the country for all sorts of subjects....

Going back to the white-house and flying over the areas doesn't do
anything other than put a political spin on it so that people like
you can feel better that he's in his "place". In reality, he could
run the entire thing efficiently from just about anywhere in the
country.

Again, you are so predictable! You totally ignore the majority of
my post that was on topic, only to answer my bait. This
demonstrates that all you are doing is being disputatious, and
could really care less about the topic of this thread.

You are just in this thread to be disruptive, and your actions
prove it.

No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and
you know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions,
there was nothing in your post that was new or different except the
above - so it was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't
changing.

I can actually smell your bullsh*t!

You have no point, just arguing for the sake of it. And your actions
proved it.

Like Bush's actions of staying on vacation while the Gulf devolves
into choas! If it wasn't so tragic, it would be a source of humor
that it took 3 f#*king days before his administration got going on
Katrina! All of the cabinet members should have gotten together at
least two days ago! But this administration is lead by the example
of GWB. Let's sit around with our thumbs up our asses for a couple
of days before we do anything!

And GWB cares about the American people as much as MS cares about its
customers. Instead of creating a more secure OS from malware, MS
goes and makes an OS that secures our copies of copyright material
from how we want to use it in the privacy of our own homes!

And instead of understanding how this affects real people, you sit
back an apologize for MS, while not have any rational argument. You
just slobber on about it only inconveniences pirates, which any
rational human being can see is just bullsh*t! We already have
examples how usage-limiting technologies affect legitimate users
more than real pirates, with PA, WGA, copy-protected Music CDs . . .
.

But you know you really don't have a good argument so you grab any
off-topic shread just to divert attention to your lack of a real
argument! You care more about the cock-sucker-in-chief, and
Microsoft than you do real people! And you only aim in these
arguments is to protect the asses you love to kiss at any cost.

So you've been outed. You have no real argument in favor of MS's
Fistula usage-limiting technology nonsense. You are just trying to
frustrate those that have valid arguments against what MS is doing.
You are just MS's toady!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Hello Kurt, Please take care, try not to become so angry that it
becomes a health issue.
I appreciate your postings and would like to have you around for a
long time.

The U.S. Presidents' (shrub, "Texas nickname") administration is
simple inept and greedy. A bad combination.
With Microsoft it may be a combination of misdirected self protection
and appeasment to other power groups. If they do not scrap, hope that
they can design a opt out option.

One should remember that some cannot admit to themselves let alone
others that they misjudged and/or made a mistake, some lack the
intellectual capacity and some are just corrupt.

take care.
beamish.

I'm not angry about MS and Leythos. MS is just acting like any greedy
corporation would, that really has no competition to act as a check and
balance. And Leythos is just arguing to frustrate, but I'm not
frustrated by him.

I am angry about the federal gov'ts response to the total devestation of
Katrina on the Gulf states. That it took 3 days before the Dept. of
Homeland Security got involved is criminal negligence!

Bush is a modern day Nero. He vacations while Rome floods!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail wrote:

Bush is a modern day Nero. He vacations while Rome floods!

As you probably know, CNN is on 24/7 in the White House and in the temp
White House(s). So I'm watching it a few days ago, live broadcast, and
the reporter on scene, quite distressed at the situation, blurbed out
without thinking "Where is the president is he still on vacation?".

So they go right back to the newsroom/anchor and he or she commented,
something like "I believe he's still in Texas". I figured after that
within an hour or so I'd see/hear of a comment from Washington on CNN.
Sure enough, about 60 minutes later CNN reported that the president was
on his way back to Washington and was cutting his vacation short and
would be commenting on the situation later in the week.

Between 12 and 24 hours later several reporters on the scene noted/saw
that Air Force I was flying at low altitude along the Gulf Coast.

They got telephones and radios in Texas? Wow - learn something everyday.

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Leythos" wrote in message =
...
In article , |@|.| says...
Between 12 and 24 hours later several reporters on the scene =
noted/saw
that Air Force I was flying at low altitude along the Gulf Coast.
=20
You guys do understand that he doesn't have to be in the white house =
to=20
do his job, right?
=20
He's fully in contact with the proper people no matter where he is in=20
the world.=20
=20
--=20
=20

remove 999 in order to email me

If you are using the=20
media without violation of the law then you are most likely to NOT be=20
impacted by what I've read of their media changes.
=20
So, again, it does not appear to impact the people that are not=20
violating the law, it's also your choice to use it, and many will use =
it=20
without any real issues.=20

The above is not true. One will require special hardware.
--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Leythos" wrote in message =
...
In article , =20
says...
=20
"Leythos" wrote in message=20
...
=20
No, I just know your position on the topic, as well as Alias's and =
you
know mine, so, since we're not going to change our positions, there =
was
nothing in your post that was new or different except the above - =
so it
was the only part that needed addressed.

What's the point in continuing on about something that isn't =
changing.
=20
I think there's a very real chance that if you understood the =
issue,=20
your opinion would change significantly. I may not be right, but at =
least=20
there's hope.
=20
The key points that you don't seem to understand a
=20
1) Copyright law contains powerful exceptions that grant quite a =
few=20
rights to the general public.
=20
2) Copyright holders would love the power to restrict these =
rights, but=20
the copyright law doesn't provide it to them.
=20
3) DRM technologies do not enforce copyright laws, they enforce =
whatever=20
policies the content provider sets. They do not care if there is any =
legal=20
authority for the policy or not.
=20
4) Copyright holders see DRM technologies as the way to get *new* =
rights=20
that they do not currently have. They want technically what they =
cannot get=20
legally.
=20
5) Commercial piracy is the excuse used to justify forcing the=20
technology on people. But the law already provides solutions to these =
types=20
of problems.
=20
The fact that you would make an argument as irrelevent as "people =
who=20
aren't doing anything illegal will have nothing to worry about" =
proves that=20
you don't even understand what any of the issues are. It would be the =

gravest pessimism to believe that your opinions wouldn't change at =
all, even=20
if you had a clue what you're talking about.
=20
You may have that low an opinion of yourself, but my opinion of =
you=20
hasn't sunk that much yet.
=20
I fully understand all of the above points - I also understand I have =
a=20
choice to purchase appliances or software that limits my choice, and I =

understand that MS has a right to include limiting code in its=20
distribution as it sees fit - I have no right to limit microsofts=20
choices any more than they have any right to limit my choice of what=20
software I choose to install.
=20
If you don't like what MS is doing, you can only change it by economic =

pressure, as most companies only look at things based on ROI. If there =

is a negative ROI for their change, they will see it, but only if you=20
are strong enough to stand by your convictions and not purchase their=20
products.
=20
As for what they include or restrictions or anything else - it doesn't =

really matter - if you buy it you agree with it. If you are using the=20
media without violation of the law then you are most likely to NOT be=20
impacted by what I've read of their media changes.
=20
So, again, it does not appear to impact the people that are not=20
violating the law, it's also your choice to use it, and many will use =
it=20
without any real issues.=20
=20
--=20
=20

remove 999 in order to email me