Slashdot Mirror

Didn't Greenday already do this like five years ago?

Recently I tried to play a DVD, and vlc crashed on me after a few seconds.

I thought maybe I needed the latest version, so I downloaded the latest at that time v0.9.8a, and while it seems they have finally made the subtitles look better, it crashed too.

Media Player Classic and Windows Media Player had no probs playing it.

I also never managed to get VLC to remember the deinterlace setting I pick (I tried the various filter and stupid obscure config stuff found on google and still it didn't work).

Overall I have a bad impression of VLC. Best to only use it if the other players can't play it.

p.s. if you are using Media Player Classic, avoid the haali media splitter crap. It causes crashes and instability[1], especially if you are using it with other stuff like windows movie maker (which someone found out the hard way - not me fortunately).

[1] http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/codecs_and_filters/haalimediasplitter.cfm

I think you're exactly 180 on that. mplayer plays any media I throw at it, from FLV to Real to H.264 (including my AVC files). It's the only media player I have installed on my media center PC. Windows Media Player won't play much of anything unless you install K-Lite or something similar, and still won't play AVC properly, nor MKV contained files. It certainly doesn't just work nearly as easily as you say it does. I mean, just read this link: http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/how_to_play_mkv.cfm

Gotta install one set of codecs and filters from one place to play mkv files, and you have to install RealPlayer to play back RealMedia streams in a markov. And just look at the install instructions: http://www.cccp-project.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page#Installation_Instructions

Insane. And it needs a damn reboot! For a codec pack! WTF? I just needed to add the medibuntu repos, and then "apt-get install w64codecs libdvdcss2" and poof, it all works. You can't tell me that isn't easier. It may not be what you're used to, but it sure as hell is much easier.

Less risk. Is WalMart going to claim each track on that CD you stole is worth $750?

Steal a CD, you're guilty of a $20 crime. But if you do it with a computer somehow you're liable for (14*$750=$10,500) dollars worth of damage.

Or in this poor sap's case, 6 months in a federal lockup for daring to offend his corporate masters.

Amazing, isn't it? That the feds and corporate America are actually making the case that it's better to physically rob a store rather than simply downloading an mp3? It's unreal.

CD quality is already overkill

Neil Young thinks otherwise. Of course, not everyone is an audiophile like him. It kind of makes me wonder if Sony pays him big to push SACD and Blue-Ray.

I almost wish you were right so the RIAA could start cutting idiots like you off of the internet.

Your logic is astounding. You wish I was right because then I wouldn't be right?

The only idiot here is you.

Seriously, do you have even the tiniest shred of evidence supporting your claim?

You mean like this or this?

If it's in their best interest, then why are they suing innocent people, and why when shown that their victims couldn't possibly be the ones they're after do they drag the suits out?

Try getting your AAC files to play.

And here's how you do it on Windows. (top google result for "windows play aac file")

I'm not convinced it's more difficult on Linux.

It's all well and good that you may like these devices but please, pay attention to requirements and stop acting like systems engineers.

People are outraged that they can't use the default clunky Windows Media player? Hahaha.

Here are two much better replacements:
VLC Media Player
Media Player Classic

I am certain this will work!

How many times has the MPAA or RIAA been linked with hiring hackers to DOS attack torrent websites or upload releases that contain viruses or malformed software in them?

RIAA hired hackers to infect P2P users and websites
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2003/01/15/riaa-denounces-claim-it-hired-hackers-to-attack-p2p-systems

TorrentSpy says MPAA paid man $15,000 to hack and disrupt TorrentSpy's network
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7583.cfm

The hackers are only responding appropriately in this case.

The Swedish government put The Pirate Bay in court and TPB responded appropriately by hiring lawyers and civilly appearing for trial.

The MPAA and RIAA hacked and disrupted P2P networks and so hackers fought back using the same exact methods.

Is hacking the MPAA or RIAA good? Not at all. But they started this nonsense both in and out of court with lawsuits and hiring people to illegally hack and disrupt networks.

Sure:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-court-ruling-brings-free-legal-downloading-step-closer/article-169941
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3760.cfm

It was a while ago and I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to find it but Google is full of resources. In that first article is also a link to a ruling.

>>>the whitespace devices use only UNUSED spectrum, following methods already shown to be effective.

We must have different definitions of effective: "Yet another Microsoft white space device fails FCC testing" - "white space wireless fails second round of fcc testing" - "white space wireless fails second round of fcc testing" - and on and on.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/30/yet-another-microsoft-white-space-device-fails-fcc-testing/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/12900.cfm
http://spectrummatters.blogspot.com/2007/08/white-space-prototypes-fail-fcc-test.html
MORE: http://www.google.com/search?q=FCC+whitespace+fails&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

>>>Enough astroturfing

I'm not sure what that means. I'm just a laid-off engineer trying to keep myself busy until the next job arrives. And I'm concerned that my Free TV is going to disappear under a rain of interfering gadgets that will block signals.

I think the response will be "So it looks like the record industry is suing a load of people who are ripping them off. Can't be bothered reading the legalese".

Then you need to be prepared to explain to them the actual reality of the RIAA campaign:

1) The people who are sued have no chance of successfully defending themselves, regardless of whether or not they actually "ripped off" RIAA. "Success" against the well financed RIAA legal team still leaves you broke.
2) RIAA has sued deceased Grandmothers that didn't even have a computer in the house.
3) RIAA's legal arguments (such as "making available") have been shot down time and time again.
4) RIAA typically has zero actual proof that you've shared anything.
5) RIAA has been known to use unlicensed and unaccountable "investigators" in violation of state law.

If you aren't prepared to explain the actual facts of the RIAA campaign to your friends and colleagues then you might as well be working for them. The reason John Q. Public is going to respond with "people are ripping them off" is because of people like you that don't want to make the effort to educate him.

Not sure its still necessary - the RIAA seems to have lost key points already - http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/5928.cfm . The problem is that unless you read /. or follow these cases for other reasons, you won't know that. Secondly, it is up to you or your attorney to point out the appropriate case law, so if you get scared and settle, or if you don't have an attorney that brings forth these issues - you lose regardless of whether or not you did anything wrong. What is needed is a direct case against the RIAA like this one - http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/12/boston_illegal.html and a cease and desist order from a judge. At least that way things can be moved to the criminal courts or counterclaims could be filed against them.

Yeah, Winamp was great but my LLama's ass was getting pretty sore so I had to change platforms. As unfortunately, the Linux client leaves a little to be desired.

It is entirely within your power to stop the RIAA suits as well.

Turn off your file-sharing software.

What about legitimate file-sharing, such as creative commons, open source, and free as in free beer content? And how exactly do you define "File sharing". File sharing can be done through anything as simple as e-mail or ftp.

The RIAA's been known to target the most trivial instances of file sharing, and in some cases you don't even need a computer

I'd rather have a more ethically responsible corporation in charge of software and hardware that can endanger human life.

This is old, but coincidental, IMHO, nonetheless.

I realize TFA only talks about bundling a few conveniences together in cars, and not running the car itself or other silly Jetson-like automation; but my fear is that if you let closed source "in the door", at some point MS will "extend" (heh!) and screw up perfectly good cars.

Secondly, considering MS's propensity toward DRM (see Vista, broadcast flags) and the simple fact that GPS can talk on the internet, this is not an entertainment "packaging" that I would welcome openly without much scrutiny.

Provided you don't have any defects, copy protection, on average, saves you money (in theory).

How does copy prot4ction save consumers money?

More copy protection -> less piracy -> more viewership -> more money per ad screened -> less ads needed to be screened -> less chance the average viewer will spend money on advertised item -> more money in average viewer's pocket (not to mention less advertising being its own reward)

That doesn't explain how copy protection saves money, it may explain how content creators make more money though.

More copy protection -> less piracy -> more viewership -> more money per ad screened

Actually "Wal-Mart hopes to gain market share by losing DRM".

less ads needed to be screened -> less chance the average viewer will spend money on advertised item

Anyone who lets ads influence them I have a bridge to sale.

more money in average viewer's pocket (not to mention less advertising being its own reward)

Except we now have more advertising. We now have more product placements in movies and tv shows. It's come a long way from when Reese's Pieces were placed in the movie "ET".

• * They sell software that's full of bugs, and won't even be playable for several patches... or maybe they don't even admit that there are problems.
  
• * They sell software that won't actually run on any state-of-the-art machine without half of the highly-touted features turned off.
  
• * They sell software that requires some sort of crappy upgrade that you really don't want.
  
• * They are trying to strongarm you into moving from a model where you buy software once, to a model where you buy the same software over and over and over and over again.

I noticed this offer on AfterDawn a few minutes ago. One major news site tells us that BD+ has been cracked by company X and another offers us a 20% discount on company X products. Coincidental or clever marketing?

No they won't. For that crowd, bribery, collusion and cartelism are all part of the free-market experience, and they like it just fine! Just so long as the gummint doesn't butt in on all the fun.

Speaking of the Gummint butting in... whatever happened to the DOJ's investigation of claims that Sony was deliberately sabotaging the HD-DVD consortium?? (In 2004, no less).

The EU also fined Sony, Fuji, and Maxwell for price fixing... a sign of things to come?

Last July, the EU started investigating why Blu-Ray was winning, wondering "whether improper tactics were used to suppress competition and persuade the studios to back [Sony's] format."

*shrugs*

OpenDNS has become popular in Sweden to bypass the Pirate Bay's DNS filtering. Update: Pirate Bay sees increase in Danish traffic

Lets take a look at what you are saying.
1. It's wrong because it is legally wrong.
Most people would consider this comment silly. Without getting into it (what a silly old topic), so you're saying that if it was legal (like in the Netherlands and many other countries soon) it would be ok?
If you want me to address this comment further I will.

2. It's wrong because you're being a freeloader and taking unfair advantage of someone else.
This is a part of your argument you could possibly expand on. There's the "freeloader" part which is really just saying you didn't pay for it. The term "freeloader" doesn't actually work when applied to things that don't run out. It works for food, supplies, candy, commodities in general. Physical items. IP is not physical. It can't "run out" (unless, i guess all copies are destroyed) The term "freeloader" suggests that a negative is happening to the non-freeloaders.
"taking an unfair advantage of someone else" would be like if someone stole your book when you weren't around, or recited your lines as if they were their own, discrediting you. The point is that something negative is happening to you. You are losing out in some way.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11540.cfm
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/6828/Music+download+sales+soar+in+US
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060320-6418.html
(More links if you want them)
And then you express your take on my arguments as "teenager crap."
"they're rich so they won't notice" Could you tell me from where in my comments this was inferred?

"their art sucks so they get what they deserve" I guess this is your take on "If she's not as good as her sales suggest (like many pop stars) than she will (deservedly) make less cash." I don't know, I guess that is similar to what I said. Except you make it sound real vindictive and mean. And then you call it "senseless babble." Why is it babble? How would you have it? You want less talented people to make more money than talented people? (please explain why this is babble)

I feel I have taken the time to articulate my points coherently. I have addressed every issue you have brought up. (Am I missing something?)
I apologize if you were offended by my previous comments. (I can be rude)

I do not feel you have addressed my points.
You seem steadfast in thinking "downloading copyrighted material is wrong." I guessing you are probably surrounded by people with similar opinions?

Consoles are actually an excellent example of the fact that people who buy cheap systems will avoid paying for software unless they absolutely have to. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have increasingly complex internal DRM systems, there wouldn't have been enough of a market for "mod chips" that bypass said DRM systems for them to exist, and the console manufacturers wouldn't have regarded those "mod chips" as enough of a threat to their licensing revenue to bother doing everything in their power to prevent them being manufactured, sold, or installed.

Here are some links which show (a) piracy flourishes when people can bypass a system's internal DRM, and (b) all three major console manufacturers take this threat very seriously indeed:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/28984/Piracy-drive-threatens-Nintendo-DS
http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/11/26/r4-chip-costing-nintendo-millions-in-ds-software-sales/
http://www.playnoevil.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/1355-Nintendos-success-is-breeding-Piracy-Problems.html
http://www.gamersevolved.com/nintendo-ds-tries-to-put-stop-to-piracy.html
http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/2884/2/
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39161307,00.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/05/sony-busts-down-mod-chip-retailer-with-9-mil-lawsuit/
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/07/31/sony-wins-australian-mod-chip-case
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4407.cfm
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13847/532/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3401.cfm
http://www.news.com/2100-1040-962797.html
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6042
http://www.geek.com/three-people-facing-charges-for-xbox-piracy/

There are countless other similar links that prove how reluctant people are to pay for software on any low-cost platform if they can find a way of not doing so.

Consoles are actually an excellent example of the fact that people who buy cheap systems will avoid paying for software unless they absolutely have to. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have increasingly complex internal DRM systems, there wouldn't have been enough of a market for "mod chips" that bypass said DRM systems for them to exist, and the console manufacturers wouldn't have regarded those "mod chips" as enough of a threat to their licensing revenue to bother doing everything in their power to prevent them being manufactured, sold, or installed.

Here are some links which show (a) piracy flourishes when people can bypass a system's internal DRM, and (b) all three major console manufacturers take this threat very seriously indeed:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/28984/Piracy-drive-threatens-Nintendo-DS
http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/11/26/r4-chip-costing-nintendo-millions-in-ds-software-sales/
http://www.playnoevil.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/1355-Nintendos-success-is-breeding-Piracy-Problems.html
http://www.gamersevolved.com/nintendo-ds-tries-to-put-stop-to-piracy.html
http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/2884/2/
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/emergingtech/0,1000000183,39161307,00.htm
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/05/sony-busts-down-mod-chip-retailer-with-9-mil-lawsuit/
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/07/31/sony-wins-australian-mod-chip-case
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/4407.cfm
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/13847/532/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3401.cfm
http://www.news.com/2100-1040-962797.html
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=6042
http://www.geek.com/three-people-facing-charges-for-xbox-piracy/

There are countless other similar links that prove how reluctant people are to pay for software on any low-cost platform if they can find a way of not doing so.

Now Digital Playground is releasing their titles on HD-DVD and Blu-ray. No longer exclusive like the were.

"The XBox 360 has become the best gaming platform for hardcore gamers, beating out the over-hyped (and -priced) Playstation 3. I'd say MS's game console division is quite successful."

Yes, successful as measured by the end user. But as a business, the XBox division is only now expecting to make a profit in 2008 after these many years. If not for the fact Microsoft could afford to operate in-the-red for so long, it would have be a failure.

Not entirely sure what you mean by co-opting other peoples' code. That's BS.

It's called dual-licensing, and in the case of Qt it's a two-way process. Open source projects get a hell of a lot out of Qt that would take them years to write themselves as well as significant resources, and using Qt gives Trolltech a lot of publicity and testing.

Well, in the examples I gave, there was ProjectMayo, which started off as a dual licensed open source effort to create MP4 compression for the people. Then it got closed before a release, and turned into DivX. People who worked on it were pissed. Thus Xvid was created, with a name that implied opposition to DivX, and the people who set up the scheme made a fortune putting DivX on devices like the DVD player behind me. There were also efforts to incorporate video support into the Ogg project through Theora and have distance from intellectual property difficulties with the MPEG group and Microsoft, but they never really made any ground because DivX got the corporate seal of approval and filled the gap.

Then there's MySQL, which was made a platform on the basis of open source good will, and is now making quiet efforts to cut off enterprise level tools from non-paying customers. Which is a real boon to those who those who all these years thought they were working towards the lofty goal of enterprise quality tools free for all.

That's what I mean by co-opting other peoples code.

An Afterdawn published LG pr release http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/11419.cfm dated oct9,2007 states that LG has only recently began manufacturing an OTA-HD to NTSC converter box. It also says that they are the first to do so.

Of course, whether they exist or not is pointless to me. I do own a HDTV-Wonder card that does the same thing, but the signal at my house is too weak to receive anything more than 15 seconds of HD programming, followed by a still image, followed by a bluescreen until another cloud/airplane passes overhead to bounce down some more signal.

But at least it looks like they should soon be available.

. . . the less interested I become in their "product"

Keep fighting your customers, RIAA. You're alienating us all, thousands at a time. See my previous posts on the matter. I bought more CDs at the height of Napster (the original Napster) than I did in the 13 years of owning CD players previous to that. I have bought approximately SIX music CDs TOTAL since you succeeded in shutting down Napster (ded kitty -- http://i.afterdawn.com/news/napster_mainpage_2002_09_04.gif ).

What do I listen to now?
Music I already own.
Talk radio.
Classical.
Christian radio.

no new pop stations. No hard rock stations. I avoid getting exposed to new material, because if I listen to new material on the radio, I am supporting you indirectly by listening to paid-for-by-advertising content. If I listen to new material, I'd be tempted to download it, which will lead to viral marketing if I talk to so-and-so about this great new song I downloaded. . . and I would be tempted to purchase it, which would directly send you profits. No, instead I decided to completely avoid it and not be your customer, directly or indirectly. I'm sure I am not the only one.

In summary:

RIAA members, F*** you.

It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.

So true. I heard the other day where someone on welfare and her 6 year old kid accumilated something like $20k in lawyer costs from an RIAA suit. Some info here. http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6873.cfm here http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005294.php

I think she is like computer illeterate and whatnot, and the RIAA admitted that "oops, we meant to go after this person, or bad, sorry" and she has accumilated like 10s of thousands of debt to fight this.

Other countries have a better system where if the initiator of a lawsuit was completely wrong, then they have to pay or something like that. I think that is a better system. Because otherwise its advantagous for a lawyer just to blindly sue whenever they feel like it, and they get paid win or lose.

I agree that they have a right to defend their copyright, but the punishment is not proportional with the "crime"

The have repeatedly asked students to quit school. Apparently the RIAA can't wait untill they get a job to pay them. The RIAA needs money so badly, that they think it's worth destroying kids hope of a real life.

They have also sued 12 year olds, and even dead grandmothers aren't safe...

"What you're missing is that it is those content creators who agreed to be paid the amounts they are."

Nice try, but wrong.

The RIAA members routinely cheat their artists who signed with them. It's one thing to pay pennies on millions they make from the sweat of other's brow, but even those few pennies are routinely cheated from artists.

Look here, naive one:
  http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04 .html

Goodness, the RIAA is really sure about who is downloading music (which is impossible), but they can't be sure about who they owe royalties too. Goodness, their head must be in a tizzy!

Maybe not such a tizzy. When you are used to not paying anyone, just getting money, I guess even paying a few cents to artists really burns!

    http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/8218.cfm

Of course, maybe it's all a desire to make the world safe for full accountant employment:

    http://www.prosoundweb.com/studio/articles/royalti es/royalties.php

What wonderful people you defend! And clearly, they have no desire to do anything but stuck to stick to the contract. What just people they are. Just wonderful.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/10189.cfm

This is just further proof that Microsoft lies.

Yes, I read the news. Perhaps more than you do I suspect.

Too bad they're thoroughly incompentent in everything they do.

FixVTS

RipIt4Me

Sony, Macrovision, and the MPAA are a little vaklempt. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Since you've never heard of Final Builds (which gives 11 mirrors for Quicktime Alternative), here's some more links for Quicktime Alternative:

• VersionTracker
• CNET Download.com
• PC World
• codecs.com
• VideoHelp.com
• afterdawn.com

I was mostly having problems with WMV files (though also with some MPEG's), hopefully this will make things better (my only Windows machine is for gaming, so I tend to be using it to look at game related info when I'm browsing - which is where a lot of the crappy WMV files come from).

The decision to use WMV is undoubtedly a stupid one borne of ignorance though. From experience, I know there are plenty of ways to do streaming video in a non proprietary way that work fine in WMP, QT and other native video players

Because VLC handles codecs internally. It has all of the common decoders built into it so you don't have to hassle with installing a ton of different AVI codecs.

On Windows, the better solution for codec hell is ffdshow (link is to Afterdawn instead of SourceForge because the binaries offered by SourceForge are old and busted). It integrates all of the same codecs used by VLC (and mplayer, for that matter) with DirectShow, so any player, editor, or encoder that uses DirectShow can use it. ffdshow is also recommended over all of those "codec packs" that are out there.

DRM forces me to pirate every DVD movie I watch, whether or not I paid for it. I use ffdshow to handle volume normalization (so I can watch at 2AM, hear the talking, and not wake the neighbors when a bomb goes off) and brightness/contrast adjustments (my room isn't always at theater brightness levels). Apparently these features aren't useful for any legal purpose... at least that's what I gather from a system that only allows these A/V processors on pirated versions of the movie (works for nearly any format except DVD video).

Absolutely, positively, INCORRECT. Sony did not SELL 1.8m PS3's...they SHIPPED 1.8 million PS3's. Many of them are sitting in stores, right next to the ones that were returned by many eBayers unopened because they eBay sales tanked. THEY ARE NOT SELLING. Period. End of story. Sitting there collecting dust. They are not coming in and going right out and then being restocked - they are just sitting there. You honestly are the first person I've seen with the balls to argue otherwise, because arguing anything but is like saying New Coke wasn't so bad.

Bollocks. Clearly they were sold and clearly Sony have manufactured and sold many thousands more since. Besides, MS claimed 10 million sold too, but guess what - they meant shipped as well and went through all kinds of verbal gymnastics to explain why sold meant shipped. Either way that's the only metric these companies have the ability to actually say with certainty. Just accept it and move on.

Dude, I'm sorry, but I guess we just can't finish the conversation, because you are simply talkin' crazy and now you are bringing up whole other topics when your basic knowledge seems to be extremely adverse to reality. You obviously do not follow the industry, because the facts at the base of your reasoning are simply WRONG. There is no other word for it. I mean, you must not even read /. regularly. That's fine and all - not everyone needs to stay on top of such things, but if you are going to tell someone they are "completely incorrect" or that their simple facts are "bollucks", you really should know what the hell you are talking about.

Sony announced after Christmas that it had SHIPPED 1.8 million units. Go to their website - look at the press release. The wording was very exact. They did not SELL 1.8 million units. This is fact reported by every gaming site and many mainstream publications.

There have been dozens of articles about how poorly all this has been going for the PS3. Either you are blind or you do not read.

Here is an article about retailers having PS3's sitting on their shelves for a week or more (70% in this case!).

Here is an article (with nifty graphs and everything!) that explains how the PS3 on eBay market CRASHED...before CHRISTMAS! It was so bad that scalpers were returning them to the stores because they weren't worth the bother to ship because they were all over retail stores and, again, no one was buying them (nor are they now).

Here is an article that confirms that Sony shipped 1m units to the US, and less than 2/3 of them sold. You will also note that this article is also about analysts cutting predictions for the PS3 based on it's bad sales - there are again dozens on the topic if you search.

Finally, here's yet another article detailing just how slow demand is. Stores are stocked - people don't want 'em.

I didn't mean for this to turn into a PS3 sucks debate, but man, you are just so ill informed about this topic one can't communicate with you on the others. My only point, from the beginning, is that PS3 sales are not going to win this format war. You have gone on and on like a friggin' press release about all this peripheral bullshit regarding the PS3, and how I don't understand "what Sony intends the PS3 to be" - we can't have that discussion while you are so ill informed about how the PS3 is really faring in the marketplace.

You'll also notice that those articles are from a selection of times - one before XMAS, one right after, one in early Jan, one last week. Before you start saying that "X-site is wrong, blah blah" I encourage you to seek out the other news stories out there abou

The CEO of Sony has gone on the record as saying he thinks online music sales are too expensive and should be close to the 25c mark.

Uhhhh... references? I would think this would be big news.

You seem to be confusing Sony with Canadian label Nettwerk Music. Its CEO Terry McBride has gone on record as saying online sales are too expensive and should be closer to 25 cents, as well as condeming the RIAA suits, and distancing his artists from those suits, as well as offering to pay legal fees for one of the defendents of such a suit.

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7849.cfm

The important bit is that the law enforcement agencies never got their hands on the records of the 22 Million innocent people (including mine, as I own a German credit card). I don't mind the fact that the banks did a search on their own database.

Really? That's great!! Because our next search is going to be on all accounts that have ever purchased anything from allofmp3.com. You know, that legal in Russia but illegal in Germany website that sells MP3s from RIAA artists without consent or royalty payments. You wouldn't happen to be a previous customer of theirs... would you? Don't worry, we'll know soon enough. Besides, two years jail time isn't really all that bad.

Allow me to provide a few cites to text that I believe support what I've said:
DMCA circa 1998

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying(2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

2 "Copying" is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall in this second category

and later on in the same document

Savings clauses

Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1) states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.

...and last but not least - the copyright law itself as it defines "fair use" just so we're clear:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

So to me it's fairly clear that the DMCA allows circumvention for cases of fair use. The catch is the interpretation of "fair use". The EFF (among others) consider a personal backup copy fair use. Of course, that's not always the case.

To add more confusion to the mess, the RIAA itself said in the MGM vs. Grokster case

Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their websi

afterdawn is a great site with all kinds of tutorials, forums and links to free utilities.

http://www.afterdawn.com/

Not sure about x264 but I'm pretty sure that ffdshow does support theora with their latest release.

Related links:
Wikipedia
afterdawn.com

Added to that is the relative lack of quality freeware and open source apps and utilities (compared to Windows or Linux platforms).

Seriously? What open source app or utility doesn't run on OS X?

He said freeware and open source, but off the top of my head (including freeware):

Foobar2000
Exact Audio Copy
VirtualDub
DVDShrink
Quicktime Alternative
Media Player Classic
7-zip
Quickpar
Nvu
Irfanview
Picasa 2
Paint.net
FileZilla

Added to that is the relative lack of quality freeware and open source apps and utilities (compared to Windows or Linux platforms).

Seriously? What open source app or utility doesn't run on OS X?

He said freeware and open source, but off the top of my head (including freeware):

Foobar2000
Exact Audio Copy
VirtualDub
DVDShrink
Quicktime Alternative
Media Player Classic
7-zip
Quickpar
Nvu
Irfanview
Picasa 2
Paint.net
FileZilla

If you have the hard disk space (since you must rip to hard disk) you might consider trying DVDFab Decrypter. It's freeware and has been used quite alot by the ripping and encoding community since copy protections started making DVD Decrypter (which was threatened by Macrovision Europe and has ceased distribution, i'm not sure about development) useless.

You can do some further post processing on the ripped files by using something like IfoEdit or DVD Shrink (which can squash the rip from DVD9 to 4.3GB DVD)

If you have the hard disk space (since you must rip to hard disk) you might consider trying DVDFab Decrypter. It's freeware and has been used quite alot by the ripping and encoding community since copy protections started making DVD Decrypter (which was threatened by Macrovision Europe and has ceased distribution, i'm not sure about development) useless.

You can do some further post processing on the ripped files by using something like IfoEdit or DVD Shrink (which can squash the rip from DVD9 to 4.3GB DVD)