____/ Mark Kent on Saturday 19 January 2008 08:58 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Windows' Genuine Disadvantage
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| When you install Vista, Microsoft claims that you consent to being spied
>>| upon, through the "Windows Genuine Advantage" system. This system tries to
>>| identify instances of copying that Microsoft thinks are illegitimate. This
>>| system includes a "kill switch" which allows Microsoft to remotely
>>| deactivate your copy of Vista. This deactivation, whether deliberate or by
>>| accident -- as has been the case in some 500,000 cases already according to
>>| a study last year -- locks you out of your computer, and forces you to
>>| contact Microsoft to get access to your files.
>> `----
>>
>> http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/windows-genuine-disadvantage
>>
>> Wait until they shut down computers for (potentially false) suspicion of
>> infringements.
>
> It's not Microsoft's job to be the police.
They play software police too and they were harshly accused of it when they
simply decided to block some benign software from third parties.
>> New laws:
>>
>> MEP says providers should cut the line if copyright is infringed
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| The European Parliament, under the leadership of the French socialist Guy
>>| Bono, is currently working on a report on promoting the cultural economy.
>>| The former Spanish minister for the arts, Pilar del Castillo Vera, had
>>| preceded her British fellow-conservative in calling for the installation of
>>| filtering mechanisms in access providers' networks. Heaton-Harris is now
>>| hitching up once more with his proposed amendment (PDF file)
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/101954/from/rss09
>
> My feeling is that the MEPs are being lobbied by suppliers of filtering
> equipment. It would be useful to know which companies are pushing their
> wares in Brussels.
Here's what PJ said about the article (she has background in this area): "Is
there some kind of contest to come up with the
stupidest-punisment-for-IP-infringement, with the prize going to whoever comes
up with a plan guaranteed to cause the greatest possible damage? Does he have
one tech clue what it is that makes the Internet valuable? How it is set up?
Why it works? For that matter, what the legal impact would be on internet
service providers in terms of responsibility for all content? I'm sure we can
trust them to get it just right. Not. But let me not be so negative. To get
into the spirit of the contest, here's my entry: shoot people who infringe at
dawn. Yes. No more molly coddling. Just cut off their oxygen, and you'll find
your infringement problem fading away in no time. Of course, there will be
fewer and fewer to buy anything either, and those who survive will hate you so
much they will boycott your products. But one can't have everything. My idea
tops his, because while both suggestions would be the end of the Internet as
designed, with all the harm to the economy that one could possibly hope for,
my suggestion has obvious human harm on top of that to society as a whole, so,
even though his idea promises the enormous harm that clinging to dead business
models always results in, I still think I win. Is there a cash prize, I hope?"
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Florida is bigger than England
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.73 1.93 2.14 2/115 15801
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
