"Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message news:fi2j2j$139$1@aioe.org...

Ubuntu

will do only from the Live CD. That just gives you an idea. I, for one,

> change the colors to a blue theme and get rid of the awful brown theme

> that is installed by default.

>

> Alias

 

 

Trying to make ubuntu look like Windows ?

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:emdtjF#KIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

>>

>> I thought it had already been established that most linux distros,

>> including your favorite, had code to bypass drm in them.

>> Thus they are illegal in the USA and EU (Spain is in the EU) so most

>> linux users act illegally from the start.

>> Once they have started committing a crime who knows where they will stop.

>

>

>

> There is no DRM in Linux so there is none to bypass. And no its not

> illegal to have a system that doesn't have it. Its illegal to hack it if

> it is there. Even Apple is think about dropping it.

> Some people will be lead astray by anything they hear.

> Don't think for yourself. Do as your are told.

 

Stop being stupid.

How does linux play a dvd if it doesn't bypass the drm on the dvd?

It doesn't have a license for the encryption it uses some code written to

bypass the drm.

forty-nine wrote:

> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fi2j2j$139$1@aioe.org...

> Ubuntu will do only from the Live CD. That just gives you an idea. I,

> for one,

>> change the colors to a blue theme and get rid of the awful brown theme

>> that is installed by default.

>>

>> Alias

>

>

> Trying to make ubuntu look like Windows ?

 

Not at all. I wish XP was as configurable.

 

Alias

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

 

8<

> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the linux

> distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not having (and

> not required to have) such code vs including code specifically to bypass

> drm.

 

The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally or

illegally.

In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has (is)

been prosecuted.

So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux distros

make the user a criminal.

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:e3pwJL#KIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

 

8<

>

> It is only Illegal in a country where DRM is the law.

 

I did say many countries not all.

> If the recording industry says that they get royalties from all music

> media and burners,recorders,etc just in case you burn your own then they

> are getting paid. So if they are getting paid how are you stealing?

 

What has royalties got to do with the copyright laws that outlaw bypassing

DRM?

You can pay if you want but you have still broken the law.

"Toad" <toad@sky.net> wrote in message

news:cVM0j.3306$F87.1545@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>

> Not hard. Linsux is just Unix regurgitated, which means it is just as

> crappy application platform as Unix was. Remember, even DOS

> applications generally beat the pants off Unix applications in their

> day, even with the stupid limitations of DOS...

 

Don't be insulting.

Linux is a copy of an old set of Unix APIs and is nowhere near as good as

SVr5 was/is.

It lacks the resource managed multiprocessing to start with (who besides M$,

linux, and freeBSD still use antiquated code locks in their multiprocessor

kernels these days?).

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Toad" <toad@sky.net> wrote in message

> news:cVM0j.3306$F87.1545@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>

>>

>> Not hard. Linsux is just Unix regurgitated, which means it is just as

>> crappy application platform as Unix was. Remember, even DOS

>> applications generally beat the pants off Unix applications in their

>> day, even with the stupid limitations of DOS...

>

> Don't be insulting.

> Linux is a copy of an old set of Unix APIs and is nowhere near as good as

> SVr5 was/is.

> It lacks the resource managed multiprocessing to start with (who besides

> M$, linux, and freeBSD still use antiquated code locks in their

> multiprocessor kernels these days?).

 

Yes, yes

 

*That* simply *has* to be the reason why >80% of all supercomputers of the

Top500 list run under linux.

Those just consist of several *thousand* processors each, so

the "antiquated" linux is breaking those systems to a near halt.

 

Spot the flaw

 

Gods, you are dumb. But then, you are a Vista user.

--

Microsoft's Guide To System Design:

Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message

news:5kee15-u3h.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

 

> As for DOS "kicking UNIX ass", I strongly suspect that DOS

> won because of its relatively inexpensive pricing model.

> Unix was very expensive back in The Day, and DOS, while

> cruder, was far cheaper. The hardware was cheaper too.

 

There were many other reasons Unix didn't do well..

 

Too many incompatible versions with different page sizes, cpus, etc. was a

major reason (yes I was using Unix in the days of Pyramids and Sequents, and

stuff before that, that you probably never heard of (I forget the names

myself).

 

Non portable C code was another frequent problem.

Anyone that claims C is portable hasn't written any.

 

Then there was a total lack of applications.. if you wanted an application,

you wrote it.

It looks like this may be coming back with more advanced IDEs making writing

windows applications really easy even if you do need to spend $400 on a PC

fast enough to run them.

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> 8<

>

>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>> specifically to bypass drm.

>

> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

 

Bypass what and do what?

> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally

> or illegally.

> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

> (is) been prosecuted.

 

You have proof of this or are you making it up as you go along again?

> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

> distros make the user a criminal.

 

Playing DVDs is a crime? Since when? If you're referring to copying DVDs

(you don't say), XP can do that with no problems. I know a guy who rents

DVDs and uses XP to copy them and then share them with his friends. So,

according to your "logic", all XP users are criminals. Fact is what you

do with something is what counts, not the potentiality of what you can

do. If you own a gun, that doesn't make you guilty of murder.

 

Alias

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:emdtjF#KIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>>

>>> I thought it had already been established that most linux distros,

>>> including your favorite, had code to bypass drm in them.

>>> Thus they are illegal in the USA and EU (Spain is in the EU) so most

>>> linux users act illegally from the start.

>>> Once they have started committing a crime who knows where they will

>>> stop.

>>

>>

>>

>> There is no DRM in Linux so there is none to bypass. And no its not

>> illegal to have a system that doesn't have it. Its illegal to hack it

>> if it is there. Even Apple is think about dropping it.

>> Some people will be lead astray by anything they hear.

>> Don't think for yourself. Do as your are told.

>

> Stop being stupid.

> How does linux play a dvd if it doesn't bypass the drm on the dvd?

> It doesn't have a license for the encryption it uses some code written

> to bypass the drm.

>

>

>

 

So, you're saying if I buy a DVD it's illegal to watch it on a Linux

machine? Got some proof or are you just making it up as you go along again?

 

Alias

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> 8<

>

>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>> specifically to bypass drm.

>

> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally

> or illegally.

> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

> (is) been prosecuted.

> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

> distros make the user a criminal.

>

>

>

>

Again, you miss the point. Linux itself has nothing to do with drm. If

the drm code is not in the kernel, there is no harm or foul. Linux or

its use is not illegal due to lack of drm code. One can choose to

download players and codecs that will run such media, but that again has

nothing to do with linux proper.

 

--

norm

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:emdtjF#KIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>>

>>> I thought it had already been established that most linux distros,

>>> including your favorite, had code to bypass drm in them.

>>> Thus they are illegal in the USA and EU (Spain is in the EU) so most

>>> linux users act illegally from the start.

>>> Once they have started committing a crime who knows where they will

>>> stop.

>>

>>

>>

>> There is no DRM in Linux so there is none to bypass. And no its not

>> illegal to have a system that doesn't have it. Its illegal to hack it

>> if it is there. Even Apple is think about dropping it.

>> Some people will be lead astray by anything they hear.

>> Don't think for yourself. Do as your are told.

>

> Stop being stupid.

> How does linux play a dvd if it doesn't bypass the drm on the dvd?

> It doesn't have a license for the encryption it uses some code written

> to bypass the drm.

>

>

>

 

 

 

Not all dvd's have drm. So maybe you should be

the one that is being stupid.

You only have that code if you install it. In many

countries it is not illegal.

Now the next question is.... If I legally own any

media what is wrong with me running it on anything

I own anywhere I want as long as it is for my use

only?

Greed is the answer.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> 8<

>

>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>> specifically to bypass drm.

>

> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally

> or illegally.

> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

> (is) been prosecuted.

> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

> distros make the user a criminal.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

With the same reasoning all Windows users are

thieves and Windows makes them such.

In the US downloading music through programs such

as Kazaa is illegal,

pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it

possible to do so. So if you if you own a computer

with Windows on it you are a thief. Or maybe even

worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:e3pwJL#KIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> 8<

>

>>

>> It is only Illegal in a country where DRM is the law.

>

> I did say many countries not all.

>

>> If the recording industry says that they get royalties from all music

>> media and burners,recorders,etc just in case you burn your own then

>> they are getting paid. So if they are getting paid how are you stealing?

>

> What has royalties got to do with the copyright laws that outlaw

> bypassing DRM?

> You can pay if you want but you have still broken the law.

 

 

 

Then why should everyone have to pay Royalties?

Maybe you bought the equipment to produce your own

music. I have many friends that do. But they are

still paying the royalties. Why?

When those royalty laws were passed it made it

legal for someone to make copies for themselves so

it was made legal, US law. DRM is only implemented

to by pass laws in the US that the RIAA and the

likes couldn't get change in this country. They

many court battles over this.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:e3pwJL#KIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> 8<

>

>>

>> It is only Illegal in a country where DRM is the law.

>

> I did say many countries not all.

>

>> If the recording industry says that they get royalties from all music

>> media and burners,recorders,etc just in case you burn your own then

>> they are getting paid. So if they are getting paid how are you stealing?

>

> What has royalties got to do with the copyright laws that outlaw

> bypassing DRM?

> You can pay if you want but you have still broken the law.

 

 

 

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071121-uk-retailers-to-record-labels-drm-is-killing-us.html

caver1

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:19:16 -0000, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>

>"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>news:emdtjF#KIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>>

>>> I thought it had already been established that most linux distros,

>>> including your favorite, had code to bypass drm in them.

>>> Thus they are illegal in the USA and EU (Spain is in the EU) so most

>>> linux users act illegally from the start.

>>> Once they have started committing a crime who knows where they will stop.

>>

>>

>>

>> There is no DRM in Linux so there is none to bypass. And no its not

>> illegal to have a system that doesn't have it. Its illegal to hack it if

>> it is there. Even Apple is think about dropping it.

>> Some people will be lead astray by anything they hear.

>> Don't think for yourself. Do as your are told.

>

>Stop being stupid.

>How does linux play a dvd if it doesn't bypass the drm on the dvd?

>It doesn't have a license for the encryption it uses some code written to

>bypass the drm.

>

>

Here's a thought... why don't wintard morons and Microsoft butt

kissers like you wake up and smell the coffee? Microsoft didn't have

to crawl in bed with the Movie and Music industry and go along with

DRM, but they did. They could have stood up for Joe Average and not

support it and it would have died a justified death. Instead the money

grubbing Steve bad ass Ballmer caved and everyone suffers.

 

Say, I was wondering... where does the line start where you idiots

line up to kiss Ballmer's hairy ass? Surely you know Dennis.

"Peter Köhlmann" . wrote in message

news:fi3puj$6p4$01$1@news.t-online.com...

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> "Toad" <toad@sky.net> wrote in message

>> news:cVM0j.3306$F87.1545@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

>>

>>>

>>> Not hard. Linsux is just Unix regurgitated, which means it is just as

>>> crappy application platform as Unix was. Remember, even DOS

>>> applications generally beat the pants off Unix applications in their

>>> day, even with the stupid limitations of DOS...

>>

>> Don't be insulting.

>> Linux is a copy of an old set of Unix APIs and is nowhere near as good as

>> SVr5 was/is.

>> It lacks the resource managed multiprocessing to start with (who besides

>> M$, linux, and freeBSD still use antiquated code locks in their

>> multiprocessor kernels these days?).

>

> Yes, yes

>

> *That* simply *has* to be the reason why >80% of all supercomputers of the

> Top500 list run under linux.

> Those just consist of several *thousand* processors each, so

> the "antiquated" linux is breaking those systems to a near halt.

>

> Spot the flaw

>

> Gods, you are dumb. But then, you are a Vista user.

> --

> Microsoft's Guide To System Design:

> Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.

>

caver1 wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> 8<

>>

>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>>> specifically to bypass drm.

>>

>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally

>> or illegally.

>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

>> (is) been prosecuted.

>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

>> distros make the user a criminal.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

> With the same reasoning all Windows users are thieves and Windows makes

> them such.

> In the US downloading music through programs such as Kazaa is illegal,

> pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it possible to do so. So if

> you if you own a computer with Windows on it you are a thief. Or maybe

> even worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

> caver1

 

 

Does this sound like a contradiction in terms at all?

 

http://www.microsoft.com/express/samples/c4fp2p/Default.aspx

 

Lemme see, you can share software that's illegal or not, so I guess

Microsoft actually leave that choice up to you but provide software (In

this case free) to give you that choice.

 

Free on Windows, Free on Linux and provided in this case by the OS

manufacturer and NOT by a third party or independent programmer.

"norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

news:ONNhnMQLIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> 8<

>>

>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the linux

>>> distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not having

>>> (and not required to have) such code vs including code specifically to

>>> bypass drm.

>>

>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally or

>> illegally.

>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has (is)

>> been prosecuted.

>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux distros

>> make the user a criminal.

>>

>>

>>

>>

> Again, you miss the point. Linux itself has nothing to do with drm. If the

> drm code is not in the kernel, there is no harm or foul. Linux or its use

> is not illegal due to lack of drm code. One can choose to download players

> and codecs that will run such media, but that again has nothing to do with

> linux proper.

 

So now you want to be pedantic and limit linux to the kernel.

Well ok I hope you enjoy running your kernel without any apps.

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:eaWk2HRLIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>> 8<

>>

>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the linux

>>> distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not having

>>> (and not required to have) such code vs including code specifically to

>>> bypass drm.

>>

>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally or

>> illegally.

>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has (is)

>> been prosecuted.

>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux distros

>> make the user a criminal.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

> With the same reasoning all Windows users are thieves and Windows makes

> them such.

> In the US downloading music through programs such as Kazaa is illegal,

> pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it possible to do so. So if

> you if you own a computer with Windows on it you are a thief. Or maybe

> even worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

 

Wrong as usual.

You have to actually do one of those things to break the law and you can do

them on Macs and linux too BTW.

 

With the DRM issue you only have to install the code, which I believe most

linux distros now do.

You do not have to use it.

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:#jSxLlTLIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> caver1 wrote:

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> 8<

>>>

>>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>>>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>>>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>>>> specifically to bypass drm.

>>>

>>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either legally

>>> or illegally.

>>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

>>> (is) been prosecuted.

>>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

>>> distros make the user a criminal.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> With the same reasoning all Windows users are thieves and Windows makes

>> them such.

>> In the US downloading music through programs such as Kazaa is illegal,

>> pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it possible to do so. So if

>> you if you own a computer with Windows on it you are a thief. Or maybe

>> even worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

>> caver1

>

>

> Does this sound like a contradiction in terms at all?

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/express/samples/c4fp2p/Default.aspx

>

> Lemme see, you can share software that's illegal or not, so I guess

> Microsoft actually leave that choice up to you but provide software (In

> this case free) to give you that choice.

>

> Free on Windows, Free on Linux and provided in this case by the OS

> manufacturer and NOT by a third party or independent programmer.

 

What is your problem?

P2P is not illegal. I use it to legally download films and the BBC uses it

in its iPlayer.

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

news:OxIyPLRLIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>

>> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

>> news:e3pwJL#KIHA.5328@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>> 8<

>>

>>>

>>> It is only Illegal in a country where DRM is the law.

>>

>> I did say many countries not all.

>>

>>> If the recording industry says that they get royalties from all music

>>> media and burners,recorders,etc just in case you burn your own then they

>>> are getting paid. So if they are getting paid how are you stealing?

>>

>> What has royalties got to do with the copyright laws that outlaw

>> bypassing DRM?

>> You can pay if you want but you have still broken the law.

>

>

>

> Then why should everyone have to pay Royalties?

 

Because they didn't vote when they should have or they voted for the wrong

person I expect.

> Maybe you bought the equipment to produce your own music. I have many

> friends that do. But they are still paying the royalties. Why?

 

Because they are stupid enough to buy audio cdrs that have the duty on them

rather than data cdrs that don't?

Or is the way duty is applied different over the pond?

> When those royalty laws were passed it made it legal for someone to make

> copies for themselves so it was made legal, US law. DRM is only

> implemented to by pass laws in the US that the RIAA and the likes couldn't

> get change in this country. They many court battles over this.

> caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" <alias@aliasmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fi3qc2$v15$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> 8<

>>>

>>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>>>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>>>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>>>> specifically to bypass drm.

>>>

>>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>>

>> Bypass what and do what?

>>

>>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either

>>> legally or illegally.

>>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

>>> (is) been prosecuted.

>>

>> You have proof of this or are you making it up as you go along again?

>>

>>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

>>> distros make the user a criminal.

>>

>> Playing DVDs is a crime? Since when? If you're referring to copying

>> DVDs (you don't say), XP can do that with no problems. I know a guy

>> who rents DVDs and uses XP to copy them and then share them with his

>> friends. So, according to your "logic", all XP users are criminals.

>> Fact is what you do with something is what counts, not the

>> potentiality of what you can do. If you own a gun, that doesn't make

>> you guilty of murder.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Stop being an asshole for a change and admit that you are a criminal

> rather than trying to pretend its OK.

 

Can't comment on what I wrote and can only spew an unfounded insult?

 

Checkmate, you lose.

 

Alias

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message

> news:eaWk2HRLIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> 8<

>>>

>>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>>>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>>>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>>>> specifically to bypass drm.

>>>

>>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either

>>> legally or illegally.

>>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

>>> (is) been prosecuted.

>>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

>>> distros make the user a criminal.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>> With the same reasoning all Windows users are thieves and Windows

>> makes them such.

>> In the US downloading music through programs such as Kazaa is illegal,

>> pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it possible to do so. So

>> if you if you own a computer with Windows on it you are a thief. Or

>> maybe even worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

>

> Wrong as usual.

> You have to actually do one of those things to break the law and you can

> do them on Macs and linux too BTW.

>

> With the DRM issue you only have to install the code, which I believe

> most linux distros now do.

> You do not have to use it.

 

 

No, having the code is not illegal. writing and

distribution of is.

Ubuntu does not have the code, as many other

distros don't. In those distros you have to go

after it.

caver1

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:#jSxLlTLIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> caver1 wrote:

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "norm" <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in message

>>>> news:#5BDWJ#KIHA.5224@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> 8<

>>>>

>>>>> I think the fairer statement would be that there is no code in the

>>>>> linux distros to support drm. There is a big difference between not

>>>>> having (and not required to have) such code vs including code

>>>>> specifically to bypass drm.

>>>>

>>>> The drm is on the dvds, linux has code to bypass it.

>>>> It is always the media that has the drm not the player.

>>>> The player just has the stuff need to access the media, either

>>>> legally or illegally.

>>>> In linux's case the code is illegal and the person that wrote it has

>>>> (is) been prosecuted.

>>>> So I think a faier statement is that in many counties, many linux

>>>> distros make the user a criminal.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> With the same reasoning all Windows users are thieves and Windows

>>> makes them such.

>>> In the US downloading music through programs such as Kazaa is illegal,

>>> pirating software is illegal. Windows makes it possible to do so. So

>>> if you if you own a computer with Windows on it you are a thief. Or

>>> maybe even worse. all Windows users are pedophiles.

>>> caver1

>>

>>

>> Does this sound like a contradiction in terms at all?

>>

>> http://www.microsoft.com/express/samples/c4fp2p/Default.aspx

>>

>> Lemme see, you can share software that's illegal or not, so I guess

>> Microsoft actually leave that choice up to you but provide software

>> (In this case free) to give you that choice.

>>

>> Free on Windows, Free on Linux and provided in this case by the OS

>> manufacturer and NOT by a third party or independent programmer.

>

> What is your problem?

> P2P is not illegal. I use it to legally download films and the BBC uses

> it in its iPlayer.

>

>

>

 

 

In the US it is if you go after copyrighted

material. Why do you think the RIAA and the movie

industry have successfully shut down different P2P

services and sued and mant who use them.

caver1