Vista I will not be buying

"Leythos" wrote in message
...

Lets see, you buy an OS, it permits you to do anything legal that you
want, you can copy music, you can copy video, all as long as you have a
legal right to it - what part are you left without?

Your analogy should be more like:

You buy a house.
You want to make crack in it.
The government has rules against it - you have a choice.
You start making crack.
You get your home taken away by the government.

The OS has no capability to determine what is legal and what is not. All
it can do is enforce a configured policy, configured by a person who may or
may not know what is legal. The whole point of this type of technology is to
permit the enforcement of restrictions that are *not* found in the law.

DS

"Leythos" wrote in message
...

There is no "Protected Area" there is just a restriction on what you can
copy. Where do you get the idea that there is some magical area reserved
on your drive?

Your assumption about "protected area" is wrong, as is your reasoning.

Suppose a virus or other piece of malware managed to protect itself such
that I could not copy it. That would mean that I could not send it to an
expert for analysis or copy it onto another uninfected machine myself to
figure out how to disentangle it from my system.

Right?

DS

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
The libraries, scholars, and legal analysts have been warning for
at least five years that fair use rights are being destroyed
completely by the MPAA, RIAA, and a subservient federal system,
under both Clinton and Bush.

And how is that relevant to Vista? If vista does not stop one from
doing legal things, then it's not really an issue, is it.

If you hardware doesn't meet some arbitrary MS/Hollywood requirement,
then you won't be able to view hi-def video content.

That is an erosion of my "fair use" rights on the hi-def equipment I
already own.

I my wide screen TV is not HI-DEF ready, so I suppose that my rights
have been eroded too.

And who really knows what other things lurk in this. And then consider
when it doesn't work right like PA and WGA hasn't for many. Consumers get
screwed, but the fat cats in Hollywood & Redmond become even fatter cats.

Copy-protection in all its forms is anti-consumer technology. I have yet
to see ANY credible proof that casual-copying has EVER hurt one copyright
owner. The publishing industry has never been hurt by free public
libraries. The music industry was NEVER hurt by cassette tapes and later
CD-burning. The TV and Movie industry was NEVER hurt by video tape! And
all these copying technologies have been used for casual copying. Even
filesharing has yet to be proven to be a scurge to the music and movie
industry. Has ANY music publisher, or movie studio even come close to
losing money since filesharing? Sure the music industry had a decline in
sales, but the same period was also generally considered to be seriously
lacking good music releases!

There are just as many studies that say that filesharing actually is good
for both industries than bad. And since none these corporate content
providers has proven it has been hurt by it, it is becoming less and less
likely that the industry paid-for studies crying about a filesharing
created doomsday is ever likely to happen.

So technically casual copying and filesharing are wrong, but in reality
they end up actually creating a buzz for what is being CC'd and shared. It
is the word of mouth advertising in the digital age.

But the music industry cried the sky was falling with cassette tapes! And
the movie industry cried wolf with video tapes! And now the RIAA, MPAA,
and the BSA are crying like a Greek chorus, yet they are all raking in the
big bucks like never before!

I've heard enough crocadile tears to know that they are all so full of
sh*t. I've heard enough of their FUD, and seen them trash "fair use" like
it was casual copying and filesharing. I know full well that no content
provider has ever gone broke because of casual copying, and probably
actually benefitted from it from word of mouth sales! And it is becoming
more and more likely that filesharing does the same but on a more macro
scale! The anti-consumer copy-protection campaigns of the RIAA, MPAA, and
the BSA are nothing more than FUD, and is intended to sucker people into
believing that "fair use" is piracy, when it really is not! Behavior
modification by the corporate copyright elites of the world to strip
consumers of both their "fair use" rights, and their right to privacy!

--
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"


And to this day have you heard of any case of (at least) someone being
reprimanded by MS (The Great) for the very statements mentioned above, like
copying a CD. So Kurttrail, back on line with the OP subject, will you be
buying Vista? Or what ever it's called upon official release. You'll be able
to join in good company Carey, Jupiter and Bruce in the new newsgroup, they
may even be on your side when the 'Neo-Uber' EULA MS imposes with it. Though
Carey's nose seems a bit too brown for that to happen.

- Winux P

GregRo wrote:

I apologize for the rant.

http://snipurl.com/hbl7

I have made my decision

Vista I will not be buying.

No one is not going to tell me. I can't have access to a part of the
computer or the hard drive. Imagine if a virus, spyware or adaware
got into that protected area and a virus program could not clean it.

I'm Sticking with xp & windows 98se forever.

If I have to get a new computer it will be either mac or linux system.

Greg Ro

Who cares what you do - stick or don't stick - who cares.

--
Rock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

begin**trojan.vbs ... On Tuesday 30 August 2005 11:47 am, Leythos had this
to say in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

In article , says...
I apologize for the rant.

http://snipurl.com/hbl7

I have made my decision

Vista I will not be buying.

No one is not going to tell me. I can't have access to a part of the
computer or the hard drive. Imagine if a virus, spyware or adaware
got into that protected area and a virus program could not clean it.

I'm Sticking with xp & windows 98se forever.

If I have to get a new computer it will be either mac or linux system.

So, what you're saying, is that you want the option to be able to steal
media if you choose and it's not the right of the OS vendor to limit you
in any way?

That is correct. Since when is the OS vendor supposed to police other
vendor's copyrights? The OS vendor is not the court system nor the police
force ... at least not yet, although I'm sure MickeyMouse is working on
taking over the state.


--
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.

Hello, Thanks for the information.
Certain people do not understand the erosion of basic rights. No matter what
they state they "just don't get it".
Microsoft may have future problems but not with file sharing or copying in
the U.S. or Europe. Their problem will be with China, India and Google.
take care.
beamish.

"GregRo" wrote:

I apologize for the rant.

http://snipurl.com/hbl7

I have made my decision

Vista I will not be buying.

No one is not going to tell me. I can't have access to a part of the
computer or the hard drive. Imagine if a virus, spyware or adaware
got into that protected area and a virus program could not clean it.

I'm Sticking with xp & windows 98se forever.

If I have to get a new computer it will be either mac or linux system.

Greg Ro

"Rock" wrote in message
...
GregRo wrote:

I apologize for the rant.

http://snipurl.com/hbl7

I have made my decision Vista I will not be buying.

No one is not going to tell me. I can't have access to a part of the
computer or the hard drive. Imagine if a virus, spyware or adaware
got into that protected area and a virus program could not clean it.

I'm Sticking with xp & windows 98se forever.

If I have to get a new computer it will be either mac or linux system.

Greg Ro

Who cares what you do - stick or don't stick - who cares.

--
Spock
MS MVP Windows - Shell/User


No one, but then again

Who cares what you do - care or don't care - who cares.

Quite ironic Spock.

- Winux P

Winux P wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
The libraries, scholars, and legal analysts have been warning for
at least five years that fair use rights are being destroyed
completely by the MPAA, RIAA, and a subservient federal system,
under both Clinton and Bush.

And how is that relevant to Vista? If vista does not stop one from
doing legal things, then it's not really an issue, is it.

If you hardware doesn't meet some arbitrary MS/Hollywood
requirement, then you won't be able to view hi-def video content.

That is an erosion of my "fair use" rights on the hi-def equipment
I already own.

I my wide screen TV is not HI-DEF ready, so I suppose that my rights
have been eroded too.

And who really knows what other things lurk in this. And then
consider when it doesn't work right like PA and WGA hasn't for many.
Consumers get screwed, but the fat cats in Hollywood & Redmond
become even fatter cats. Copy-protection in all its forms is
anti-consumer technology. I
have yet to see ANY credible proof that casual-copying has EVER hurt
one copyright owner. The publishing industry has never been hurt by
free public libraries. The music industry was NEVER hurt by
cassette tapes and later CD-burning. The TV and Movie industry was
NEVER hurt by video tape! And all these copying technologies have
been used for casual copying. Even filesharing has yet to be proven
to be a scurge to the music and movie industry. Has ANY music
publisher, or movie studio even come close to losing money since
filesharing? Sure the music industry had a decline in sales, but
the same period was also generally considered to be seriously
lacking good music releases! There are just as many studies that say
that filesharing actually is
good for both industries than bad. And since none these corporate
content providers has proven it has been hurt by it, it is becoming
less and less likely that the industry paid-for studies crying about
a filesharing created doomsday is ever likely to happen.

So technically casual copying and filesharing are wrong, but in
reality they end up actually creating a buzz for what is being CC'd
and shared. It is the word of mouth advertising in the digital age.

But the music industry cried the sky was falling with cassette
tapes! And the movie industry cried wolf with video tapes! And now
the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA are crying like a Greek chorus, yet they
are all raking in the big bucks like never before!

I've heard enough crocadile tears to know that they are all so full
of sh*t. I've heard enough of their FUD, and seen them trash "fair
use" like it was casual copying and filesharing. I know full well
that no content provider has ever gone broke because of casual
copying, and probably actually benefitted from it from word of mouth
sales! And it is becoming more and more likely that filesharing
does the same but on a more macro scale! The anti-consumer
copy-protection campaigns of the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA are nothing
more than FUD, and is intended to sucker people into believing that
"fair use" is piracy, when it really is not! Behavior modification
by the corporate copyright elites of the world to strip consumers of
both their "fair use" rights, and their right to privacy!

And to this day have you heard of any case of (at least) someone being
reprimanded by MS (The Great) for the very statements mentioned
above, like copying a CD. So Kurttrail, back on line with the OP
subject, will you be buying Vista? Or what ever it's called upon
official release. You'll be able to join in good company Carey,
Jupiter and Bruce in the new newsgroup, they may even be on your side
when the 'Neo-Uber' EULA MS imposes with it. Though Carey's nose
seems a bit too brown for that to happen.
- Winux P

I got Windows XP as a present, so I didn't pay for it, and I wouldn't
pay for Fistula, though that won't stop me from posting to a Fistula
group. ;-)

--
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...
That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he trusts
himself more than he trusts his OS vendor. It's a question of who
should have the keys to his computer, him or Microsoft. He chooses
himself. I would too.

But the vendor isn't doing anything that would impact anyone that
isn't doing anything unethical - at least nothing anyone has
mentioned points to the vendor blocking anything ethical.

Taking control away from the individual with technology is unethical in
my book, but I'm not a total suckup to corporations, like you!

--
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
...
In article ,
says...
That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he trusts
himself
more than he trusts his OS vendor. It's a question of who should have the
keys to his computer, him or Microsoft. He chooses himself. I would too.

But the vendor isn't doing anything that would impact anyone that isn't
doing anything unethical - at least nothing anyone has mentioned points
to the vendor blocking anything ethical.
..

Irrelevant argument and non sequitor.

I read the article and it was quite depressing. Should an OS maker be
"that" involved in "law enforcement?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:26:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he trusts himself
more than he trusts his OS vendor. It's a question of who should have the
keys to his computer, him or Microsoft. He chooses himself. I would too.

Thank you David. That is exactly my point.

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:26:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he trusts
himself
more than he trusts his OS vendor. It's a question of who should have
the
keys to his computer, him or Microsoft. He chooses himself. I would too.

Thank you David. That is exactly my point.

While I agree with your view - and don't believe they should be
installing anything that the RIAA wants, since it doesn't impact those
that don't violate the laws (at least as I read it), I don't have any
significant issues with it.


Not the point. The point is MS has NO BUSINESS being a copyright cop.
'Course, this fits right in with the principles behind PA and WGA: assuming
paying customers are thieves. So, this will prevent someone from sharing
some music but I am sure it won't prevent the real thieves from copying any
more than it prevented them from pirating XP.

Alias

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:26:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
wrote:

That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he trusts
himself more than he trusts his OS vendor. It's a question of who
should have the keys to his computer, him or Microsoft. He chooses
himself. I would too.

Thank you David. That is exactly my point.

While I agree with your view - and don't believe they should be
installing anything that the RIAA wants, since it doesn't impact those
that don't violate the laws (at least as I read it), I don't have any
significant issues with it.

LOL! When it screws up, as all usage-limiting technology does, it will
impact those that haven't violated any law. True pirates will get
around it, only law-abiding people will get screwed.

--
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
...
In article , aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
So, this will prevent someone from sharing
some music but I am sure it won't prevent the real thieves from copying
any
more than it prevented them from pirating XP.

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.

You don't know the difference between sharing and selling? Why am I not
surprised?

The cassette tape did not mean the end to the music companies. The video
cassette did not mean the end to Hollywood. MS made BILLIONS with Win 9x and
W2K even though they could be casually copied.

You are wrong, Leythos, your patronizing and phony morality notwithstanding.

The only people who will be inconvenienced are paying customers. The real
pirates that steal for a living will not, as usual, be affected.

Alias