A more effective way to blacklist the BSA is to only use free/open source software.
That may work. However, given that Ernie Ball dumped Microsoft and went with Linux, then suffered a raid that shut down his business for a while, or the other companies that have had BSA show up and complain that their Windows tools wouldn't run on the Linux Servers, or attempt to destroy systems that were running free/open source software because they weren't running Windows, you might have further problems blacklisting the BSA.
The better method would be to outlaw the system of legalized extortion that companies like Prenda and the BSA use.
You'd think that organizations so concerned with infringement would be extra careful to avoid engaging in it themselves.
Every time they do, they bring up one of two issues, neither of which make them look good. Either they simply don't care about infringement when they do it, or accidental infringement is so easy that even they can't avoid it.
I'd vote for the former. They don't care about infringement...they care about their legal extortion, and that is about it. The moment Congress comes in and makes what they do illegal, or the moment that some Judge comes along and beats them up, they will be screaming to everyone that listens about the poor software companies they service, whom without them, those companies would have to go directly after their customers instead and how they are really important to world peace and everyone's livelihood.
The truth is they are hypocrites and legal extortionists who care only about the money they are getting by abusing their customers/former customers with the most obtrusive process they can, especially if the accused has the gall to dump Microsoft and go with a real operating system (i.e. Ernie Ball.)
Trust me, not many politicians are worried about that. They already know exactly who is going to pay for it.
Sadly, I believe you are correct about this.
Unfortunately, the laws that exist to keep government employees from benefiting in corruption such as bribes and kickbacks don't exist for the politicians. Sure, there are laws against bribing politicians, but campaign donations don't qualify.
No, his argument relies on dealing with the government as if it's an enemy of the people.
I admit I had to go back and read what I said, because I don't remember ever saying anything of the sort. Luckily, I did read exactly what I said, and I am pretty sure you are putting words in my mouth. I can't be certain, as what I said was said before I had enough coffee.
I believe what I said, and what I meant, was exactly what you said (as nasch pointed out.) If the companies want to use government money to help purchase and build their business model, then they can't be upset when the public (through the government) comes back and takes their infrastructure away and gives it back to the people who actually paid for it (as in, the American public.)
In Kansas, for example, cable operators recently ran into a bit of a chainsaw when they attempted to ban towns and cities in the state from running their own fiber or working with partners like Google Fiber (operating in Kansas City).
I believe in capitalism, but in the case of crony capitalism, I think the best solution is to go to the logical conclusion of their argument. If they don't like government "meddling" in their affairs, than they should not be allowed to own or control any network built using government funds (even if it only supplemented their own, and/or they received funds from the government for, during construction, or as a result of the build.) If they don't like it, don't accept the money in the first place.
Now that the government owns and controls the entire infrastructure (since government money was used to build it,) then the government can open it up to anyone who wishes to pay to connect to and provide infrastructure support. Problem solved.
Good thing I am not a politician...it seems so easy to figure this stuff out when you don't have to worry about who's going to pay for your next round of hookers and blow.
I thought this was a national thing, but perhaps it's a state thing -- but in my state, this is overtly illegal.
It may have been illegal here, but since it was a contract thing, it probably would have been a civil matter. I never tried to fight it (until they told me the contract was dead anyway because the company was out of business.)
Auto dealerships will, however, lie about this and they do tell their customers that they have to use the dealership or approved shops.
I suspect it was very much a lie. I suspect if I had taken it to my mechanic (who is certified and runs his own garage,) they probably never would have known. But I wasn't willing to test it at the time.
Perhaps some states allow two-tier sales of beer. In California, I can't purchase a case of beer from a distributor. Has to be a retailer, but there is an exception for on-site craft brewers selling directly to consumers.
That isn't because of legal reasons...but contractual or a policy by the distributor. California does not have a Three-Tier Distribution system (though I can guarantee the majors are trying to corrupt the system pushing for the same three-tier scam they have with other states,) and brewers can sell the beer directly to you or directly to a retailer without going through a wholesaler.
By using contracts to make them pay more for substandard service that is offered by other businesses. Dealer work on cars is tremendously more expensive, time consuming, and annoying.
I had a vehicle that lived under one of these contracts (extended warranty.) If I used anything other than the dealer for any car repairs, the contract was null and void and I'd be on my own for future repairs. This included oil changes and routine maintenance, which they required every three months or every 3000 miles. The vehicle was primarily a "vacation vehicle", which had very low mileage. But, following the rules, I did my best to comply with the contract. While the jiffy-lube down the street can take your car in at a moments notice for an oil change, and usually costs far less, I'd be a chump and schedule my maintenance every 3 months or 3000 miles weeks in advance, and would deliver the car at 8am to be picked up around 5pm (they wouldn't schedule any less than a full day, even if the change took 30 minutes.)
The company went out of business and the contract became null and void, despite my efforts. Another company "bought" the contract, but failed to hold up their end of the bargain. I didn't find this out until I had an issue with the vehicle that needed work, so I took it to them only to find out they were gone, and the replacement company wouldn't honor the contract. The end result, my extended warranty was cancelled even though I paid an arm-and-a-leg and lots of heartache to keep up my end of the bargain (and then paid even more to fix problems that would have been covered by the warranty.)
A year ago, the vehicle had a recall, and I was told to take it to another dealer to fix a problem that the company would pay for. When I took it in, they screwed up the repair, and then told me that there was a bunch more stuff wrong with the car that needed to be repaired right then and there, because it was unsafe for me to drive the vehicle away without repair. I laughed, because stuff they said was broken was stuff my mechanic just fixed (including "balding tires" that were just replaced a month before, with the sales slip still sitting in the car.) I took it back to my mechanic, who fixed their shoddy work and checked the car over again to make sure that all the stuff they said was wrong wasn't. Their $450 bill turned out to be about $80 worth of work by my mechanic, and that was just fixing what they broke. A scam, pure and simple.
I swore off extended warranty's from that point forward, since I see them now as little more than a carrot to keep you paying them. I will never take a vehicle, recall or otherwise, to the dealer. I could have taken it to my mechanic all along, who I trust, who schedules stuff better and takes walk-ins, and who charges me far less for far better work.
Guess that will mean no more updates for DVDFab, wink wink, nudge nudge.
Kinda like when they originally sold their software online and had the software that breaks DVD copy-protection on dvdfab.net and the software that doesn't on dvdfab.com (for those non-freedom-loving countries, or at least those countries that like to treat intellectual property is property for producers, but not for consumers.) Everyone I knew, even those in the US, downloaded the software from dvdfab.net even though the DMCA made it illegal to distribute.
I suspect dvdfab.cn will work just as well as dvdfab.com/.net.
Couldn't you just pay your cable company $50 to turn it on for one month and then cancel?
Have you ever tried to cancel something from the Cable Company?
When I subscribed to cable many moons ago, I could do so from the website. They had all sorts of ways to subscribe or upgrade your subscription. When I cut the cord, I tried to cancel via the website, only to find that you had to call a phone number, and when I called that phone number, I was told I had to go to the cable company's storefront property to cancel. I went on a relatively calm day, in the middle of the week, and took a number and sat down. Three and a half hours later, they called my number. I walked up and told them I wanted to cancel my cable subscription and only have phone and internet. They had me go through a twenty minute survey on why I was cancelling my service, then spent another twenty minutes trying to persuade me to keep cable and just reduce my options. Finally, they "cancelled" my subscription. A week later, I received a bill which said I still had basic cable. I called again, only to be told to go into the store to fix the problem. Rinse, repeat.
Seems like it isn't worth the time or the money to get NBC for a month and then cancel.
But did they prevent critical features of Windows 95 from working when that support ended?
Depends, does issuing patches for discovered security flaws count? Not that I disagree, and Windows 95 works fine without security updates/patches...but some people would argue that critical features includes security flaw mitigation.
Wow, at one point RSA were crypto heroes to me. Phil Zimmerman was an inspiration to my studies. They've just burned the last tenuous bit of bridge remaining between us.
Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, Leonard Adleman and Phil Zimmerman are still crypto heroes. None of them currently have anything to do with the company RSA Security LLC (which is owned by EMC.) Zimmerman never had anything to do with RSA, except having RSA use the government goons to shut down PGP as "munitions" when PGP and RSA got into a little licensing spat.