Slashdot Mirror
Apple Shuns DRM Efforts So Far
Graff writes "This was found on SiliconValley.com. In an article for the Mercury News, Dan Gillmor talks about how Apple is still standing firm against the Digital Rights Management (DRM) efforts which the entertainment industry is trying to force on the public. There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress."
Apple knows that as the little guy they have to actually make their users happy. DRM doesn't make for happy users, but "Rip, Mix, Burn" commercials do.
"Then, one day, I tried to burn a mix CD on my PC, and it wouldn't let me. That's when I bought an Apple."
Seriously, though, that's the best argument I've heard so far to buy a Mac.
Finally, well, if Apple pisses the studios off enough, we will see some OTHER brand of computer in the movies besides Apple!
;-)
Yes, I know about the "guest appearances" of SGI in "Twister" and others, but this may lead to more "reality" in my action movies. Like using a Cpmpaq to upload a virus to aliens
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
no, it has to do w/iPod. It's business. It's not about making the public care for them more.
I am SURE other MP3/Ogg player manus are REALLy thrilled about DRM.
Remember that Microsoft is the one that A) voted AGAINST legislation for DRM and B) has opted to make it a consumer choice as to whethor or not you want Windows to boot in "DRM" mode or not. If you're not in DRM mode, you simply can't play purchased digial music. Big deal - I'm not buying crippled music. However, you can still play all of your "insecure" MP3's and WMA's.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
I think Dan Gillmor is missing the point. DRM
is coming -- it's too useful not to catch on.
The question is not will we be able to resist
DRM, but rather, who will be empowered by it?
With the right laws, the answer could be "the
public". It will be hard to get the right laws,
given the evil influences of Microsoft and the
entertainment industry, but it's not a physical
or moral impossibility.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
... to see the day when (non-IT) people say, "You're running Windows?! Why would you want that? You can't do anything with that!"
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
Bah, back in my day, mice didn't have ANY buttons. Just teeth, ornery little buggers!
Now, they are telling the DRM to shove it!
No, they have not done that. They simply haven't come forward to say much of anything on DRM. That doesn't mean that they won't. Be careful what you read into silence.
One of these two things will happen:
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's also another article on the fight for our digital rights in Congress.
You gotta fight... for our digital rights... in Connnnnn-gress!
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Trust.
Intel, AMD, and Microsoft basically believe that we are untrustworthy until proven trustworthy. Even when we prove it, it's only for that exchange.
Apple believes their customers are trustworthy.
Which company would you rather do business with?
Mox
Pixar is /not/ owned by Disney. Pixar has a 5 film distribution deal with Disney. But it is it's own production company.
My thoughts exactly. This kind of thing could put Apple's sweet movie placement deals in jeopary. Maybe Tom Cruise will have a Zaurus in M.I. 3....
m00.
The thought that Microsoft "voted" for or against any legislation at all is kind of unnerving. I thought that's what we had legislators for.
Sitting on my desk next to the computer I'm on(my company Dell laptop) is a brand new PowerBook. Impulse buy, really... one I can't really afford, but oh well.
This is just another confirmation that I made the right decision. And heck, more and more games are coming out for Mac, too! I should have waited a few weeks, though, when they are planning on upgrading their models. Everyone else should take note of that.
Looking at the prices, they aren't as bad as I had thought. The features on the PowerBook I got are expensive on PC laptops, too. You get what you pay for.
The only bad thing is Apple's tendency to try to lock you in. They're open about many things, but they can be bad about pushing their own bundled applications. On the other hand, they don't purposefully break things(with the exception of Dock extensions, which is an annoyance) or try to STOP you from running your choice of software.
- Free tabletop fantasy gaming! Grey Lotus
Pixar is publically traded, and Jobs is the chairman and CEO. I'm not sure if Disney has any investment in the company other than a contract to distribute movies made by Pixar. And it's a great contract, too. Jobs got them to split everything 50/50, an UNHEARD of deal. Steve is widely praised in the Hollywood machine for getting Disney to go along with this deal.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
That was worded inprecisely. It should have read 'Microsoft's Senators and Represnetatives' instead. Unfortunatly they're up against Senator Disney and Representative Sony.
I read the internet for the articles.
Should DRM become so bad that users can't do some of the most basic actions that would fall under fair use, I really think Apple would be missing a major opportunity if they did not start advertising their lack of DRM. As long as Joe Average knows that not every platform restricts you in such a way, there will be a strong temptation to switch.
:)
"Step 1: Insert CD
Step 2: Click import
Step 3: There is no step 3..."
Like I said in one of the previous articles, I think that the only way Apple would include DRM is if they become legally required to, or are forced into a situation by the entertainment industry that could cut Apple's users out of the picture...that is if they were to only release material in a DRM approved format. Now I know that there would be computer saavy folk who can work around the DRM, but Apple's average user won't. (heh, unless that simply requires a magic marker)
Regards,
Sean
Apple is setting themselves up as the computer to own if you want to work with multimedia, and installing DRM (which restricts fair use on a host of multimedia types) gets in the way of that vision.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I suppose I'm glad that Apple isn't implementing DRM into their products, but this is simply a strategic business move, not some brave defense of our rights. Believe me, if they stood to benefit financially from DRM, it would be there (and very may well be in the future).
Before we all have to endure the ensuing "Apple cares about us!" and "Yay for Apple!" posts, just remember that Apple does not equal freedom. Free, open source software does.
Apple, Inc. does not care about you or I, in fact, no ones gives a shit about you or I, so take control yourself by using, developing for, and advancing Linux. If you don't like having others make your choices, start making your own.
Thank you Apple.
sulli
RTFJ.
One day Apple is lauded for bringing unix to the masses.
The next they're hated for keeping Aqua closed.
A week later, they're lauded once again for making development tools free.
Then they're hated for pushing specific look and feel.
They're loved again for ignoring DRM pressure.
But only a day before, they're scoffed at for keeping people out of the GUI cusstomization business.
And to top it all off, they're even disliked for having a monopoly in their own segment.
Either Apple doesn't know what one hand is doing while the other isn't looking, or we're a bunch of really fickle damn people. With me, it's come down to a comparison between Apple, Microsoft and Linux on the areas of usability, who has whose best interests in mind, and price.
Apple is by far the most usable. Bar none. Linux may have more uses, and Microsoft owns the market. But neither Linux or Microsoft actually seem to develop intuitive interfaces and software that Just Works.
Apple is only slightly more expensive than a comparable PC. Your typical linux box is kludged together from parts and duct tape, or built significantly cheaper from new parts. Linux wins this hands down, but is it enough?
But the real key is the question of who has whose best interests in mind. There's no debating the fact that Bill Gates wants your first born. MS EULAs are so easy to find fault with that it's become a hobby here. Microsoft wants to control your computer and accepts no responsibility when things break. Linux is all about freedom, your software, your gear, your control. Great in theory, but things just -break- on Linux as soon as you start installing post-distribution software unless IT is your life. Great for professional IT guys, but Linux seems to continue failing to make mom and dad comfortable.
Steve Jobs on the other hand, is a very odd type. He wants things his way, but he's utterly convinced it's' because it's better for everyone else. And oddly enough, he's usually not too far off. Apple makes their entire reputation based on making the system something anyone can get into and take the reins of. With XServe, they're on track to some badly needed credibility in the IT segment. They might be a scary monopolistic bunch in some pretty noticable ways, but despite it, they've got the best system for anyone.
I wish I were of enough stature to suggest a truce. I'd suggest this. Apple should open up the interface for a bit more customization, expose the API's and maybe work in some kind of X11/Aqua hybrid feature so X11 applications can run on Aqua without extensive modification to the Aqua look and feel. In exchange for this, Open Source advocates can shut up about how Apple isn't entirely Open Source, and accept the fact that Apple's survival counts on them having the exclusive control of their own interface.
Sound fair?
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
They're not owned by Disney, they just have a contract to release movies only through Disney that AFAIK expires after the next movie they release. (5 movies was it? So that's Toy Story 1 & 2, A Bug's Life, Monster's Inc, and whatever the next one is). Not everyone working for Pixar is thrilled about their deal with the Mouse, and I'm sure Disney is looking hard for some other up-and-coming animation studio to take over so they can get Jobs out of their hair, as Eisner REALLY doesn't like him. However, Pixar will be sitting pretty and probably be deluged with offers for their next contract from every studio with the cash to get in the bidding. Hell, even Disney may feel forced to try and keep them around, as much success as Pixar's movies have had.
Yay Microsoft.
Seriously, though, the notion that Palladium is okay because you're not forced into booting into it is a joke. Microsoft built a billion-dollar industry by understanding that there are many kinds of forces, and some of the most powerful are market forces.
Once a large installed TCPA compliant processor base exists, you're going to find yourself forced into booting into Palladium mode because you won't be able to access the content you need without it. Your boss will send you e-mail, for instance, which will only be able to be read in Palladium mode. So you'll have to boot into it. Microsoft knows this. Microsoft is counting on it.
That's why it's so important that we refuse to upgrade to TCPA chips. We know from the DivX debacle that consumers have the ability to reject bad choices. We need to draw the same kind of line in the sand with TCPA chips. If AMD and Intel take a massive economic hit on the Trusted Computing architecture, they'll reject it. My fear is that a shallow understanding of the Palladium future by consumers + naive, buzzword-driven purchasing by PHBs will enable Trusted Computing to establish a market foothold. The battle lines are being drawn and I think we have a lot of work to do.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I hate to flamebait, but I don't think there's any other way of saying this...
To everyone who thinks Apple is "sticking up for your rights" or some crap: Get a clue.
This is purely marketing - Apple doesn't "believe" in anything any more than any other company. Given the chance, Apple would introduce the "friendly fascism" of DRM just the same as Microsoft has been doing. The only difference is that Apple can't *afford* to alienate their users in this way, whereas Microsoft is able to piss off a lot more people at once and get away with it.
Don't drink the Apple kool aid and believe that they're doing anything with your rights in mind. Buy an Apple because you love Aqua, or because you like OS X's mainstream application support, but with the ability to whip open tcsh when you feel the need. But don't buy their stuff because you think they're doing your rights any good. If they do so, it's incidental, and precarious at best.
If you're interested in your rights, go install Debian and only use Vorbis for your music. Yeah, you don't get Aqua, but at least you can be true to yourself. ([plug]and in all, while not as pretty as Aqua, GNOME 2 is pretty damn nice, usability-wise[/plug]) Otherwise, get an OS X box and be happy, but be happy with it for honest reasons.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Uhm, that "our" throws off the line's rhythm; as it stands now that line has one syllable more than the original: You gotta fight... for your right... to paaaaaaaar-tyyyyy! Now, if you changed it to "for digital rights" then you'd stay with the beat without losing your meaning.
Well, no, because "for digital rights" is still five syllables, whereas "for your right" is only three. Also, I was trying to stay as close to the quote in the article as possible. It's a tradeoff either way, but I didn't think there was enough to be gained by tossing out the "our". Appreciate the feedback, though.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Dan Gillmor, Victor Nemachek (from El Gato, makers of the OSX PVR eyeTV), JD Lasica (a journo working on a book on fair use), Tim "O'Reilly" O'Reilly and I (from EFF) did a panel on fair use, DRM, and the digital hub at O'Reilly's OS X con in Santa Clara yesterday. Glenn "802.11b Networking News" Fleishman blogged a transcript of the panel here,with lots more depth on the subject.
I don't see non-corporate entities producing microprocessors or MP3 players. It doesn't matter what every non-corporate entity is thinking, when it comes down to someone wanting to buy a computer they're allowed to use. Who cares why the other guys are doing it, they're doing it. End of story.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Minor correction. That's why MICROSOFT has legislators.
I've figured out why Joe-consumer does not use GPG for email, and probably a good reason why Apple is avoiding DRM: consumers don't understand security keys and encryption and such. It saves Apple money when customers aren't calling wondering why their MP3s suddenly stopped working, just because they put them on a different disk or had to reinstall part of the OS.
So we, as developers, need to figure out a way for the public to understand encryption for email security purposes, but keep digital media-reletated encryption confusing as hell!
Actually Steve has come out and said straight up that he is against DRM. Apple has and always will be about the user's rights. I just wish I could find a stupid link to prove it.
I've never bought a battery-powered Apple product that doesn't come with batteries :-)
And they've done things right for a while. Like USB. And FireWire.
But what it comes down to is that they're a company that has to make money. This is a really good way to make money. The other guys don't let you use your computer. Mac OS X does. Ta daa!
(Offtopic rant: I've noticed that all of the non-Apple-lovers call it "OS X" while most people who like Apple call it "Mac OS X." I find that amusing. Despite all the things about toy computers that people have said for fifteen years, it's still a Mac.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Apple's real business is selling Macs, the iPod is simply a Mac accessory. They hope that cool toys like the iPod will sell more Macs. Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers. If DRM was good for their computer business they would dump the iPod faster than you could say "Newton."
They want people to see the Mac as the platform for folks who are making their own cool mix CDs, and that are making their own movies. DRM would put kinks in these kinds of uses, and so Apple opposes DRM. Besides, they have seen the writing on the wall, a lot of people actually like getting on Kazaa (or whatever, I have never really gotten into P2P) and sharing music, videos, and other assorted files. For many people that is their primary reason for owning a computer. The last thing Apple wants is to be cut off from this market.
On the other hand, I don't want DRM on my main PC. I should be allowed to archive all my CD's to mp3 (and later, DVD to mpeg-4) on the biggest hard drive I can find and share it all with every other computer in the house. This is perfectly legal under the "personal use" clause of the license agreements, but if DRM had its way even this wouldn't be allowed.
DRM is not a person. DRM does not stop you from archiving your CDs to mp3. DRM is not a law. DRM merely allows companies to protect technologically that which they can already protect legally. That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
err what OS company has stood up and said they want DRM ?!?! Wake up folks ONLY the hardware vendors have done that, evem M$ has agreed to make DRM optional, they are venal, greedy and immoral, but not stupid. One does not amass that much money being stupid. By ensuring the presence of DRM capabilities M$ keeps their large corporate customers, who are TERRIFIED of a law suit over pirated software or music or somthing even more trivial, while allowing it to be turned off they try and keep face with the consumer market. What is going to really HURT is when our IGNORANT LAWMAKERS decide (are payed to vote) to REQUIRE DRM. The big issue is the hardware vendors, AMD/INTEL who've both rolled over and played dead like good little doggies. Where are we going to get non-crippled parts and such ?? :(
Any Open Source hardware projects out there
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
It's clearly a scam. An evil, all-encompassing plot to inconvenience and dupe _you_. You've figured it out. Knock on the left wall in your room. It's hollow! That's where the secret Apple-Intel Inc. cameras and recording devices are hidden.
Besides, my MAC is kept on my network card and doesn't have an Intel chip anywhere near there.
I'll continue thinking I'm free and that you're a bozo.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
DRM is not a person. DRM does not stop you from archiving your CDs to mp3. DRM is not a law. DRM merely allows companies to protect technologically that which they can already protect legally. That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
FUD if i ever saw it. DRM makes it a pain in the ass to archive your CDs to MP3 and to play them on other boxes, and to reinstall your OS, and oh yeah...it also makes it a pain in the ass to run what you want to. It also makes it pointless because I don't want a vapor copy of something that I could have hardcopy of. Why would I purchase an MP3 or MPEG4 when I could just buy a DVD or CD and then make it myself, making it less suceptible to loss? DRM is nothing more than a system of control that they want to implement to make it a pain in the ass to use your fair use. you can't resell a digital file of a song, but you can resell a CD. It's pure marketing evil. Look beyond the surface...theres a lot more to it than just protecting their works
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"Either Apple doesn't know what one hand is doing while the other isn't looking, or we're a bunch of really fickle damn people."
I'm with the latter. It' amazing. This thread, because it's vaguely pro-freedom (or pro-stealing) will have roughly 200 "Apple rules, I wish it ran on Intel, I'd buy OS X today" people. Yesterday's thread, because, despite being a giant non-issue, seemed to be about controlling people or limiting something, resulted in 500 "Apple sucks, they're just another monopoly. Kill them and bury them next to M$" posts.
Fickle fickle fickle. You know how it works? You pick a side and cast your lot with it. I picked Linux a few years ago, saw what I was missing, and returned to the Apple fold. Either make up your mind and commit or just stop bitching. That's how I see it. If you like Linux, do your best to make it better and promote it. Why do you care what Apple does? If you like Macs, say "ha, I don't have to worry about dumb MS licensing and crap" and be happy making iMovies and burning DVDs. That's really all there is to it.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
All of the things you described Apple as being criticized for are the same thing: Keeping the GUI closed. Just thought I'd point this out, since it doesn't strengthen your point any.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
DRM and such in effect really create a different product line. One that is more constrained then what we all have come to understand is the highly versatile power of "computers".
Incorporating DRM and such constraining technology
is to create a lessor in versatility product line.
There is a real and notable difference in such product lines. The DRM being closer to a consumer appliance then a computer.
It is outright FRAUD being directed at the consumers to deceive the consumers into thinking these two different product lines are one and the same, which they are in fact not.
Further more it is slanderious, libelious and inherently defamation of consumer character to base the proved false need for the incorporation of such constraning technology on the false claim that consumers are theives.
I have no problem with hose who want to create and sell such a product line inclusive of DRM and such. Nor do I have a problem with those who produce works only accessable by such DRM oriented devices.
What I have a problem with is the very clear intent to subvert consumer choice and free enterprise thru acts of deception and collusion on the part of industry and Government.
There are now two clearly different product lines.
One constrained by DRM based and like technology and the other not.
Knowing this is the first step towards properly addressing the deceivers and colluders.
FUD if i ever saw it.
Do you know what "FUD" means?
DRM makes it a pain in the ass to archive your CDs to MP3 and to play them on other boxes, and to reinstall your OS, and oh yeah...it also makes it a pain in the ass to run what you want to.
DRM does none of these things. If the artists wants to allow you to archive your CDs to MP3, then they set the bit which allows you to archive your CDs to MP3.
Why would I purchase an MP3 or MPEG4 when I could just buy a DVD or CD and then make it myself, making it less suceptible to loss?
Because you don't want to walk to the store? Because the artist doesn't have enough money to stock a store near you?
We've got 5 Macs here... and an OSX Family Pack to boot ...
...
...
We have a desktop G4, a PowerBook, a G3 Blue-n-White, an iBook and an iMac
And yes, they all get used. The PBook and iBook are business machines, the rest are all home machines
--NBVB
The day CD-DA disappears because "everyone" has magically switched to Windows Media, I will eat my hat.
Decades ago, in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper: "The day mass-market vinyl disappears because 'everyone' has magically switched to this new 'Compact Disc Digital Audio', I will eat my hat."
Will I retire or break 10K?
"And to top it all off, they're even disliked for having a monopoly in their own segment. "
what monopoly?
why is apples survivla based on keeping its API's closed?
serious, I want to know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Disney doesn't own Pixar, Steve Jobs does.
a in.asp?dcn=0000891618-01-500477
From: http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/edgardoc/finSys_m
Steve Jobs 30,000,001 62.8%
c/o Pixar
1200 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
Disney and TCW (I think a group of Disney Execs) own about 16%.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
One thing that I see that might change this is the simple fact that a large percentage of the media that is created and distributed is created and prepared for distribution on Macs. That might make a difference. Video is edited on Macs. Audio is mixed on Macs.
The United States and most European countries have already outlawed practice of medicine or law without a license from the government. They also regulate possession of some pharmaceutical or surgical tools. Then what happens if the United States government and the European Union government decide to outlaw practicing audiovisual engineering without a license? And what if professional audio and video tools are available only to licensed and bonded audiovisual engineers?
See also: "The Right to Read" by Richard M. Stallman
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why? Because Hollywood thinks the only reason anyone would want to make a DVD is to copy their shitty movies. I find that very offensive that they can only see DVD technology as a means to push "Rush Hour 2," and that they would penalize those of us who want to create rather than passively watch TV.
That's a good thing, because it encourages people to release content in formats they otherwise would be forced to avoid.
People? You mean, like, Hollywood? They aren't "forced" to avoid any formats-this argument is exactly the same as Jack Valenti's "Betamax is killing the movie industry." Heard it before, don't like my tools being restricted just because Hollywood can't or won't change its business model.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
but it's pronounced Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.
I'm not sure who originated the term, I first saw it attributed to RMS.
Digital Rights Management is total Orwellian double-speak.
Absolute statements are never true
Remember how big a deal it was back in the days when Intel released their microprocessor serial number and everybody hated it (even though it would probabbly have brought more good to the world than palladium EVER would?) and they disabled it *BY*DEFAULT*?
that, my friend, is what i am hoping for with microsoft. we all know that palladium will be released regardless of what happens, but if we make enough impact for it to boot into the "insecure mode" (without too much bitching and whining) by default, we can have a good chance of killing it. all it needs is really some (okay, a lot of) bad publicity. the thing that did the intel trick was the "privacy" deal (even though, actually, it wasn't so much a big deal) -- being that Palladium has the potential to do THAT much harm, it makes you wonder why no newspaper has did any kind of real columns on it...
oh wait... you don't mean the newspaper (media) is ultimately the same group of people as the RIAA / MPAA (content providers)? outlook not so good, eh?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Where can I get myself a senator?
"Can I keep him?"
"I don't know, he looks pretty hungry. Here, give him some booze."
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Considering that the hdd prices have dropped much more than the iPod prices have dropped, I would not be surprised at all to find out that the biggest earner of profits is the iPod.
This presumes a smooth launch of Palladium and rapid customer uptake. That in turn presumes that Palladium itself isn't buggy, and that the whole industry has a massive driver signing party.
Much more likely in the near-to-middle term is that Palladium will come out with some number if, if not bugs, at least hardware/driver problems. In addition, the first DRM-enabled media will have problems. It's hard enough to launch a new technology *without* disablement technology in it, and the whole field of disablement is relatively new.
The old days of copy protected software are probably the best precedent, and they were rocky enough. I don't look for Palladium to have an easy launch, and I further expect one side-effect to be driving more users toward Macs. This depends, of course, on legislation, as well.
Since I was taken to task a while back, I have one (for the moment) question about Palladium. Does a Palladium boot need to be completely trusted or completely untrusted, or can it be mixed? For instance, if my video card doesn't have a Palladium-signed driver, can I still boot trusted and listen to DRM music?
I call Palladium disablement technology rather than enablement because the only thing it has added is a point of refusal. It is enabling only in that it lets me view/hear media that someone else would prefer to refuse, otherwise. But bits are bits, samples are samples, and in that respect it has added no new capability.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's not a good thing if you're a video editor like me.
So adapt.
Heck, up until about a year and a half ago, burning DVDs was ridiculously expensive-and you can bet "Digital Rights Managed" DVD players and their successors won't play the DVDs I make for my clients.
I certainly would be against DVD player manufacturers abusing their monopolies in that way. But that's a separate issue.
Why? Because Hollywood thinks the only reason anyone would want to make a DVD is to copy their shitty movies. I find that very offensive that they can only see DVD technology as a means to push "Rush Hour 2," and that they would penalize those of us who want to create rather than passively watch TV.
Heh, that's cute. Put words in Hollywood's mouth and then get offended by them.
People? You mean, like, Hollywood?
No, I mean independent music artists.
They aren't "forced" to avoid any formats-this argument is exactly the same as Jack Valenti's "Betamax is killing the movie industry." Heard it before, don't like my tools being restricted just because Hollywood can't or won't change its business model.
You seem to be the one favoring restricting tools (like DRM) because you don't want to change your business model.
This is fairly ridiculous.
Yes, Apple is a business. The business isn't there to make us happy and protect our rights. However, it does happen to believe that doing these two things is in the company's best financial interests. So they are doing great things such as this shunning of the DRM. Why does it make a difference if Apple is doing this out of love for humanity or because it just makes sense? It doesn't change the fact that it is a Good Thing, and seems to be a trend with Apple these days.
It's just like with legislation. If our Congressmen voted against DRM, I wouldn't care if it was purely out of the desire for votes in their next election and didn't care a whit about actually helping people. So long as they are motivated to do the best thing for the people.
If you found out some major app or utility for Linux was made by a programmer who didn't give a crap about freedom or rights, but just wanted to have that app for free (read: motivated by money), would you discourage people from using it?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Well, as was mentioned in another thread, it was demonstrated that Apple isn't actually a Microsoft competitor in the broadest sense. Microsoft offers an OS, Apple an entire platform on different hardware guts. Some people see Apple as a monopoly on Apple equipment, which is oddly logical.
And the way Apple's survival depends on the GUI isn't just with the API's. They could open several of the API's without any real fallout, if they put the effort into making them as secure as they could. But the real selling point to an Apple machine is that they Just Work, and work the same. When you get into system customization on the level of Windows, let alone something like *nix, you start seeing problems with interoperability among the same platform. A context-click doesn't work the same because of X mod (WinZip), or a new menu is available from the menu bar (nVidia tray icons) because of Y mod, or the file saving dialog (GetRight) is different because of Z mod. Once you begin doing things like those, it makes support more of a hassle for the guy on the other end of the help line, and it runs the risk of breaking other areas of the OS itself.
Apple's entire reputation is "It Just Works" these days, and any application that breaks that reputation is bad for Apple. My compromise solution would be a small section of the menu bar reserved for extensions. Allow people some of that flexibility, but keep it constrained within a specific area of the interface so it doesn't interfere with Apple-designed tools.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
That's a good point. However, the iPod is basically a commodity device. Heck, it is basically just a hard drive. Apple isn't dumb enough to think that they aren't going to get serious competition in that market. iPod rip-offs have already appeared, and they will undoubtedly push down iPod prices much closer to the cost of components, probably in the near term.
Apple is very sensitive to both its own copyrights and such, remember the recycle/trash bin discussion and the lawsuits of the 1980s, but Apple was started by hardware freaks, and not software freaks. Steve knows the work-arounds are too easy, that's why Apple never really bothered with copy protected software in the first place.
Bill Gates is focused on software, and since the mid 1970s he has been obsessed with preventing programmers, uh, oops, consumers from copying his programs bootleg style.
This is a very old difference between these two camps. DVDs, CDs, digital media, whatever, for Steve it's all the same. Hardware has a much greater profit margin, and he wants to sell primarily hardware. See how much of the current i-Suite is bundled or downloadable free of charge?
It's to drive the sales of hardware units.
Sony and BMG have their own problems. BMG bought Napster to try to outrun this problem. But it's not Steve's problem.
Even for his Pixar films, he controls the rights to the lucrative movie theatre sales. Again, to really see a movie, you have to have a large screen and a popcorn machine. Bill doesn't work that angle, Steve does. Steve makes his money without worrying if some kid is going to copy his digital wares, because he has already turned his profits.
Let's not see Steve as an altruist, but simply someone who knows how to pick profitable models, that don't require unnatural market protections.
Remember, DRM is not only a pain in the @$$, but they will also have to raise taxes to reinforce it with police and the courts. FUN. ;-(
I see a necessity for this post since most people don't seem to realise what this is and what it is not. Some people take the acronym as thruth and assume it will enforce their rights online. It will NOT.
...
a) Microsoft WILL be able to bypass the restrictions and thus your rights will not be protected from them and their "partners". It will protect their "rights" against you (the quotation marks are there because market domination and forced obsolecence will surely be among the enforced "rights")
b) DRM is a technical solution to achieve MORE and STRICTER copyright law. According to microsoft's own site.
0) you will need a licence server to actually be able "transparently" protect files. This means the possibility of giving out licences over the web. (I wonder what other way they had in mind)
-> somehow i doubt they will support apache
-> the cost of a licence server is in the same ballpark as the datacenter server version of windows (NOT the consumer ballpark), so if you're an artist, you will most likely not be able to afford this
1) DRM will prevent resale of bought music.
2) DRM can make most music self destruct after a while, because you have supposedly agreed to that (note that you DO NOT get the choice to agree or not) at the present time, the clauses of the "contract" aren't even shown to the user. And it is ILLEGAL to bypass the contract (as in potential jail time if you record the music)
3) DRM does not allow you to play a file on another computer, an mp3 player or
4) DRM makes it possible for the licensor to revoke and change YOUR rights to your music AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON.
5) Because licenses and digital media files are stored separately, licensing terms can be changed on the server, without needing to redistribute or repackage the digital media file.
6) Windows Media Rights Manager "locks" digital media files with a license key to maintain content protection, even if these files are widely distributed. Each license is uniquely assigned to each computer.
CDs provide more functionality than vinyl. WMA provides less functionality than CDs. Why would anyone switch, given the cost? And don't tell me that it will be required by law, because if all those Discmen out there don't work people will scream. (Example: the utterly dead-on-the-vine HDTV.)
sulli
RTFJ.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course, it's business for Apple. They're a business.
The controversy surrounding DRM is political. Regardless of the side you take, your political allies will be few and far between if they have to first pass an ideological litmus test.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
This post will be filled with tangents -- bear with me. =)
I'm a big PC fan and I love Linux. This post made me really think and actually consider buying an Apple. What I want to see is options. When I can customize my desktop to the extent I can with GNOME, I'll start recommending it to folks. However, I'll still probably use Linux for 1) Game compatibility and 2) price.
I agree that Linux doesn't "just work", it does work most of the time. I put RH 7.3 with Ximian GNOME on a box and everything just works for me. No issues with word docs, no issues getting my browser and email to integrate with other apps... etc. I've got my parents and a family friend on Linux, and none of these people are "computer literate." I think the only thing they really need right now is easier installation and management of programs and files and more interoperation.
One of the things that gets me is that some folks arrogantly say Linux is so hard to use, but in fact they haven't touched it past a two year old version of Slackware or they only use Debian. Linux has been moving very fast in the past few years and it's starting to speed up even more. Ximian has been out for a while, I like it and I think it works well. A lot of people are collaborating well on interoperability and things are changing. Linux moves faster than proprietary stuff, so it's a fallacy to base your views of it without having used the stuff that's come out in the last 6 months.
As for Apple, I think the Slashdot readership is just that -- a group of readers. A bunch of different people. You can't call slashdotters fickle when there are overwhelming differences in opinion one day to the next -- some folks are just being quiet, some folks are speaking up and some folks are just expressing their views regarding individual issues with Apple separately.
As for my opinion, I say that Apple should move more towards OSS and prove that it's possible. Not all of their money is based on software, although I'll admit I have no figures. I would be behind them all the way, but they have the mantra that "What's good for Apple is good for you."
Default options are wonderful if you don't want to research configurations. But locking configs down is ridiculous, IMO.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
"Of course, they make some money on the iPod itself, but not compared to selling computers."
The margins on the iPod are likely much higher than the ones on the PC because you can get away with higher margins at lower prices. A lot of people see a candy bar for a dollar and will pay for it, even if the candy bar takes 5 or 10 cents to make. That's a 100-200% markup. Most retail stores need a 50% markup over costs of merchandise to cover expenses of staff and make a nice profit as well (after all, if you're not turning a profit, you are going out of business soon).
The iPod has some plastic, a few chips, software, and a laptop HD. Total cost to Apple is probably 40 to 60% of the price of the device at the store because of their volume purchasing power. The store takes in maybe 10% of the price, the rest is divided between Apple and the company that ships things to stores.
Ever notice how the 10gb and 20gb models are only a little bit apart (compared to the 5gb and 10gb models)? That's because they could probably sell the 20gb model for very close to the price (if not the same price as) the 10gb model and still make a profit similar to that of the 5gb model. The extra cost to them of making it a 20gb drive instead of a 10gb drive is small enough that they want to make it look more attractive to buy the 20gb version, because they make ~99% of the price difference between it and the 10gb model straight into their pockets. That's why FastFood places will "supersize" meals as well -- an extra 5-10 cents of cola and fries to gain an extra 60 cents of money is a very smart thing to do if you want more in your margins.
What about computers? Computers aren't as simple, and the parts cost more overall. Most places have very, very slim margins and rely on economies of scale to give them a healthy profit margin. That is how Dell is so succesful(their margin is larger because you pay it all to them, with no $$ going to the stores or other middlemen). That's why VA systems got out of the computer hardware business --- teeny, tiny margins, even on server hardware. That's why Compaq and HP merged (slimmer margins mean more must be shipped). That is also why white-box computers flourish (speciality shops charge more, but give more in terms of selection and control). Electronics Boutique charges more than Wal-mart on games, but they have a much wider selection, and they will buy back used games (as well as sell used goods).
So keep in mind that the iPod is a very smart move for Apple, not just a Mac accessory designed to push their computers. Just because something costs more, doesn't mean they're making more.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
MS would be strongly against a government mandated DRM system.
Why?
Simple, standards. If the government says how DRM will work then everyone will be able to write to that and have DRM. If MS gets to make their own DRM system they'll be able to ensure that only the companies they want can play along.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
My business, like any business, is essentially conservative. Have you ever heard the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
Hollywood thinks the same way I do in this fashion. The only difference is that they are pushing for legislation that would make the barrier of entry for media creators much higher than it is today, because they are paranoid about people copying their work.
You can argue whether the rampant copying of Hollywood movies is good or bad for their industry, or whether they're doing it deliberately to curb content creation outside their accepted channels, but I don't really care. The bottom line is, the legislation they they want to pass has the potential to hurt a lot of small businesses.
No, I mean independent music artists.
Do you know any? Most of the ones I know are so desperate for listeners, they actually give away their music for free(!) online in hopes that it will help to build a fanbase and get more people at shows. I sure don't hear them saying, "Please reduce the channels of distribution that we have even further by making our homemade MP3s incompatible with future computers!"
Heh, that's cute. Put words in Hollywood's mouth and then get offended by them.
Whether you think it's funny or not, that's the way the industry works. Trust me, I've worked there.
You seem to be the one favoring restricting tools (like DRM) because you don't want to change your business model.
Way to add 2 and 2 to get 13. Allow me to elucidate: I don't want laws created that restrict the barriers of entry for content creators. "Digital Rights Management" is an artificial limit placed on technology that would accomplish precisely that.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Just because Apple doesn't actively support altering of Aqua doesn't mean you can't, or for that matter, that it's not allowed.
DualityApple has pursued those who create an Aqua style theme for other computers because the LOOK and FEEL does belong to them. They paid artists and graphic designers to come up with it. Using it elsewhere is like using the Apple logo elsewhere, and Apple has the right to keep what's theirs theirs.
X11 already runs on Mac OS X, in the same screen space as Aqua (if your turn the option on), and personally I feel as though it's a Good Thing(TM) to have X11 not look like Aqua. After all, it ISN'T Aqua and thus I am made aware of the enviromental differences simply by observing what kind of window it is. If I'm the type of person who can't handle that, why am I running X11 in the first place?
XDarwinIf you're talking about doing screen drawing, Aqua is meerly the look and feel (interface philosophy, if you will), it doesn't HAVE an API. You may be thinking of Quartz, QuickDraw, and QuickTime, which are pretty extensively documented, as they always have been. For free, too. If you're intrested in what Aqua actually is, read the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines.
As for Aqua, anything you need to do to make Aqua windows/widgets when coding are there. Check out the Window Manger documentation, or the Cocoa flavor, if you liek that sort of thing ;-)
There are no "hidden APIs" (unlike M$ Windoze). There are however, system internal functions for performing tasks that need to be done (Window widgets, double buffering, etc), for which there is no need of programmer intervention.
Claiming those functions are a "hidden API" is like being pissed you can't call functions in a library because they where only implemented to assist the programmers while writing the library. In fact, that's exactly the same thing, isn't it? Hmmmmmm.....
This is one of the ways Apple is achieving greater system stability, through abstraction of the OS and hardware to the programmer. MacOS 9 (er..."Classic") was hacked to shreds by anyone and everyone, and there where all kinds of problems with INITs and CDEVs and such running amok on everyone's system. I have no less than 175 INITs and CDEVs on this machine right now (yes, a Classic box, 8600/250) and I use most of that functionality. The OS sometimes gets slow, sometimes crashes. A clean install of MacOS 9 will be damn quick and DAMN stable. Throw all this crazy hack-job business in the mix and it's easy to hose your whole system in no time. With Mac OS X, Apple has abstracted many things and it keeps programmers from being naughty and say, writing directly to WindowDef structures, which reside in system memory space. So should it be allowed? Imagine a loop with a bug which, under certian conditions, will write forever to that WindowPtr. Now remember it's in the system heap. Oops.
I can put it better with a quote from Super Troopers: "The less you knew, the less you could fuck up."CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
we all know that palladium will be released regardless of what happens ...
:)
Yup, TCPA and Palladium are coming. But our goal isn't to stop their debut, it's to make TCPA chips a spectacular and expensive failure. We need to make the entire Trusted Computing architecture an albatross around the necks of AMD and Intel, one that they want to jettison as soon as possible.
if we make enough impact for it to boot into the "insecure mode" (without too much bitching and whining) by default, we can have a good chance of killing it.
I don't think so, and I think this is actually a damaging idea. You're focusing on software first, and that's bad. It assumes that we've already let TCPA get a foothold.
We need to prevent the adoption of TCPA chips by the general populace. This is the primary battleground. If enough people upgrade to chips capable of supporting the "Trusted Computing" model, Trusted Computing applications will gain momentum. It's those applications that will ultimately force users into booting into restricted mode (and staying there) in order to access content they need.
Palladium and other DRM/TrustedComputing code is a secondary fight.We want to encourage people to reject code that uses the Trusted Computing architecture, whether that's OS code or application code. But if we've prevented them from upgrading to TCPA chips in the first place, we don't need to worry about Palladium.
And I prefer the phrase "restriction-free" mode to "insecure" mode.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Not to be left behind, all the other distros made similar proclamations, except Debian, which is late and expected to follow suit sometime next year.
Pretty shortly, the OS/2 development team will make a similar announcement, as will the FreeBSD teams, as will the QNX team, as will that guy down the road who wrote his own OS in assembler.
Secondly, this is a non story. Apple HAVEN'T made an announcement! Incredible. I haven't made an announcement today either, can I get a story on slashdot? In fact, the ONLY people who have announced their intention to support DRM are the one company that do in fact have a monopoly and can therefore do such an unpopular thing.
Finally, all those people who've posted things like "Wow, Apple you are clearly sticking up for my rights, I'll buy a Mac" are talking rubbish. Apple are famous for abusing the legal system whenever it suits them. They are a corporation, and know all about legal pressure points. If it turns out that this mystical all encompassing DRM strategy isn't working because the pirates are using Macs, then the RIAA will have a quick chat with Jobs, who will see where his best interests lie, and bingo suddenly QuickTime has DRM.
There is in fact only 1 type of OS that will never have DRM, guaranteed. Say no more.
RIAA wants DRM precisely so they can shut out John Q. Garage band.
So?
Why do you think the record companies hate music-swapping networks?
Because they allow consumers to obtain music without paying for it that they otherwise would have been forced to pay the record companies for.
My favorite bands all encourage tape, CD and MP3 swapping among their fans (well, Tom Waits doesn't to my knowledge; the rest of my favorites do).
Mine don't. But more to the point, what bands are these, and where can I download their music? I've found the free stuff out there to be crap. (I assume these are non-RIAA artists who own the copyright on their own music).
However, before too long the major Media Player suites will *only* play properly secured content (again, in the name of fighting piracy -- the record execs will get on camera looking very hurt and say "we're giving the music away for free; we only ask that you register with us -- how cruel are you people?"). Once that happens, musicians who aren't signed by big labels can't distribute their music anymore.
I never said I was for monopolistic control over who is allowed to produce secured content. I only said I was for DRM.
The day CD-DA disappears because "everyone" has magically switched to Windows Media, I will eat my hat.
Sure, I mean this isn't the industry that forced us all to transition to LP's from 78's, or that convinced us to rebuy all our music on cassette after that, and then 20 years ago convinced us all to upgrade all our music to CD again. Is it?
Tried getting hold of any mainstream music on vinyl recently? Even cassettes are pretty hard to find now, and the sound and cassette assembly quality of pre-recorded cassettes is at an all-time low. Of course, you probably don't notice this, because chances are, you buy everything on CD.
The content industry has proved at least 3 times that it knows exactly how to get us all to upgrade our media formats, whether we like it or not: the transition from LP to cassette was in all sorts of ways a step backwards, but it still happened. Cassettes didn't last too long in the mainstream either, because they allowed you to record. The content providers pushed for a more desirable format, and up popped CD, which you could only copy to analogue cassette for the first 15 years of its life or so, significantly downgrading the quality.
Today we face a situation fairly similar to how things were in 1981 or thereabouts: a recordable, fairly open format (Then: cassette, Now: MP3/Ogg) is going mainstream, and is slowly killing off an older, more cumbersome, more expensive but arguably better-sounding format (Then: LP, Now: CD). The content industry is unhappy about this, because they feel that the recordability/copyability of the newer format is going to affect their bottom line. So they lobby for new laws in the US (Then: 1976 Copyright Act, Now: 1998 DMCA) to give them some legal standing, and to enable them to clamp down on those encouraging copying, and then they push for a new, virtually uncopyable format (Then: CD, Now: Windows Media/Palladium) with their technology partners (Then: Sony/Philips, Now: Microsoft/Intel/AMD). The new format has benefits for the consumer (Then: better sound quality and robustness, Now: no more trudging round music shops - entire catalogues available for easy download, all with pristine encoding and no blatant P2P spyware/stealware included).
The parallels are stark, and it only took 10 years for CD to dominate and for other formats to start dying, niche markets aside. If the content industry and Microsoft gets the marketing right, I fully expect exactly the same to happen with WM/Palladium - it will come to dominate in 10 years and CD will die.
The situation isn't entirely identical - the evolution of digital technology has made the stakes higher for both content provider (free P2P distribution is their worst nightmare) and consumer (breaking strong encryption on trusted systems seems a lot harder than simply waiting for recordable CD technology to become available and affordable). So you can expect much more of a battle than was the case with CDs. Nonetheless, I still expect the content industry to win this one - they are the ones with all the strings to pull. We don't have to let them walk all over us though - if we make noise now, we should be able to at least get some concessions towards fair use. If we shout loud enough, there is still the outside possibility that we can kill it dead.
However, if you simply sit tight and see what happens, maybe buying a Mac rather than a PC in a token gesture, then I hope you've got lube and an unwanted hat (not a red fedora by any chance?) because you'll be bending right over for the content industry and you'd better be hungry.
``If this bill were to pass, it would render ineffective, worthless and useless any protection measure we would have in place to protect a $100 million movie,'' Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said of the Lofgren bill. ``You could download a million movies a day, and no penalty for it.''
Somehow I doubt that I could download a million movies a day. But I would love to see what kind of internet connection he has!
maybe work in some kind of X11/Aqua hybrid feature so X11 applications can run on Aqua without extensive modification to the Aqua look and feel
XDarwin runs rootless. Oroburs (free like beer and freedom) provides an X window manager that feels like Aqua. Not sure what else they need to do.
Apple should open up the interface for a bit more customization, expose the API's and
Apple is actually against this right now. Their position on the APIs is that they don't want to expose APIs until they are sure they like the way things work. They intend to support documented APIs for many many years and so they are thinking very carefully about them and given that Aqua has only been a commercial product for 18 months its still quite immature and there are lots of changes planned over the next few years.
Quite simply Apple isn't ready to make Aqua's APIs totally open and manipulatable.
I stand corrected. Disney doesn't own Pixar, but most if not all of the commercial success that they have had has been due to Disney films and Buena Vista distribution channels.
Since Pixar is in the movie business, I still wonder what their stance is, regardless of who owns them.
Linus hasn't said one way or another. This could very easily split the Linux crowd between the: Linux on the corporate desktop (free as in beer) vs. GNU/Linux to change the computing paradigm (free as in freedom).
Depends how corporate America feels about the Palladium email/document control features
Eh? What is 'it' and how does the existence of other operating systems that don't do DRM make Mac OS X more like the other guy? I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say.
What I was trying to say is that Mac OS X is a competitor to Windows (the other guy.) Mac OS X doesn't have DRM, so it lets you use your computer more than does Windows.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
XDarwin runs rootless after you compile it, configure it, and clutter up your harddrive with the jumble of things fink dumps in the arbitrary /sw foldere. My suggestion would be to include XDarwin-rootless with a basic WM that at least didn't clash with the appearance of Aqua as a default part of the interface that people are able to play with when they want to. Orobourous sounds like a good option. Make it a pre-compiled application available with the OS, optimized slightly by Apple, to take advantage of all the X11 software base. Apple could very easily do something like this with a clear disclaimer ''This advanced use of your Macintosh cannot be officially supported by Apple due to logistical reasons, please contact your application creator for assistance.''.
The last time I messed with Fink, I was astounded at how completely badly it seemed to screw up my system. Permissions got hosed, I lost track of what came with my OS and what was lumped in by Fink and wound up reformatting (something I'd been considering anyhow, which is why I didn't just do a fix permissions reboot) Fink Commander is a nice tool, but it's got a pretty major flaw - it asks you to reply to a console message that it -hides- before prompting you. Rather large problem.
Apple may not be completely ready to open the API's, and that's entirely reasonable of them to do. The unfortunate problem is that they are deliberately breaking other people's applications instead of just saying ''Look, we can't support this yet but give us some time.''
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
What prevents me to create a MP3 accessing it directly from the memory?
What prevents you is that if you are running a debugger with access to system memory your system will be running in untrusted mode and won't be able to decrypt the MP3. If you decrypt the MP3 first you'll be in trusted mode and the untrusted dubugger won't be able to run except in a sandbox and that sandbox won't have access to the memory storing the MP3.
I believe Apple insisting that their GUI be a closed box is a good thing. There is documented interfaces, and the fact that the system design lets somebody reverse-engineer the undocumented interfaces does not mean that people should be allowed to use them. If they did this then Apple could never change the implementation because they would be forced to be compatable with stuff they never designed as a public interface.
Of course somebody should check that the Apple apps are not using the undocumented interfaces (I suspect they are not). If they are they can be acused of doing what MicroSoft was doing.
In fact if systems start coming out that *only* play DRM stuff (because non-DRM stuff is obviously pirated), this is a trememdous blow to independent artists. They will not be able to distribute music, even for free.
Better start learning about selling insurance.
what is the significance of "mass market" to a consumer in terms of vinyl records?
Let me express "mass market" quantitatively: Among albums that contain any of the top 40 popular songs for a given week in 2002, are 75 percent available on vinyl?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Do you refuse to buy food that you can't microwave as well?
If the food came in a sealed metal container that only opened to release the food once it was half way down my throat, just for the purpose of not being microwaveable, then no, I would not buy it.
I'll send you a bill for the analogy repair.
What Apple is really doing is sticking up for what Jobs believes in, which happes to be that DRM is a bad idea for consumers and for companies.
Some companies are basically giant extensions of a leaders personality. I would argue Apple is such a company, as is MS, as is Oracle, and to a lesser extent, Sun.
Your argument that Microsoft can "afford" to do this so they do, is silly. Why would any company do something if they knew it would hurt them? MS does it because Bill Gates believes in this stuff, just as Apple thinks it's stupid so they don't.
Just think of it as a giant war fought with huge robots ala Anime, except that the robots are replaced by companies. That's exactly what we are in the middle of, and you should be damn thankful that one of the giant robots is protecting the peasants instead of firing giant fricking lasers at the Barn of Rights where all the Animals of Freedom are housed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This:
Get back on topic, this article is not about laws.
And this:
DRM is a technology, not a law.
DRM is impossible without laws to support it. It makes no sense for you to try to separate the two. If DRM related things are not enacted into laws, then DRM is completely useless, as competing, open technologies would be widely available and more desirable to consumers. If all of the consumers buy non-DRM technology, the MPAA/RIAA will drop DRM like a bad habit. They NEED laws.
I also like your implication that you get to decide what aspects of this issue people should argue about. I don't think it probably works that way, buddy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The parent should be modded up. MS doesn't care about end users, they're just sore that at least the RIAA has been dissing a their DRM solution for a long time. A mandated solution would end up being a solution open to all OS/system vendors and wouldn't make MS a red cent, and in fact could threaten their OS monopoly by giving an even foothold to other OSs in the realm of digital media.
An MS DRM solution would be unavailable or crippled on other platforms without hefty licensing fees.
First off you can get X11 precompiled. In any case "fink install oroburus" will do the work for you. As for screwing up your system the whole point of using /sw was so that fink doesn't touch the Apple stuff.
As for Apple starting to bundle; while I support Fink Apple has started their own project called "Darwin ports" which is going to be like Fink except supported by Apple and thus "in the know" about future developments.
I couldn't buy an Ipac, and use it on both my work and home PCs, right? Don't they forbid you from shuttling music?
ostiguy
I have had no trouble with playing DVDs from my hard drive with both Intervideo WinDVD and Cyberlink PowerDVD.
Same caveat applies: You must decrypt it first. The Mac doesn't have much of an advantage here.
It has plenty of advantages DRM-wise in other arenas though. *coughcoughMSMediaPlayer9coughcough*
Even better: Rip the DVD to local DivX so you can take more than 1-2 on your trip. (I'll take the quality hit for the advantage of being able to store more than 1-2 movies on my HD.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yea, the whole UNIX core feels seperated as a whole, it's as if there is a good connection there but a slightly loose one... maybe this is one of the things Apple will address now that speed & functionality are up to par? Hope so :-\
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
> The list price of $130 for OS X is perhaps a little high.
...
How the hell can anyone say OS X is expensive for $129, while Red Hat Linux 8.0 Professional sells for $135 and MS XP Professional for $187 on amazon.com. Out of box, OS X is not only far superior in style, but also provides much more tools than XP and Linux combined. The programming tools alone could worth over $1000, let alone AppleWorks, iMovie, iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iSync, iChat,Mail, Address Book,
It's more like DRM throws the baby (my business) out with the bathwater (illegal copying). Doesn't change what I do or how I do it, just makes it really fucking expensive to get "licensed" or "non-crippled" equipment, thus driving up the barrier of entry for creative professionals without any tangible benefit. In other words, muscling people out of the market, or racketeering if you will.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
We have 3 here, an old iMac as a gateway and AirPort Base Station, an iBook and a Power Mac. The family license is a good deal. I would say that Mac people tend to be more honest and willing to pay for software they use.
Once you see the light of Mac and OS X, you just don't want to touch a PC. I got rid of my PC and Win XP a few months ago, and don't want to look back. We have everything we need on the Macs including MS Office, and they just work. All the machines are on 24/7 and keep running for weeks or months, they will go asleep when no used for a while and wake up in a fraction of a second. I have to shut down my PC every day - just too noisy, and it still crashes a few times a week.
Generally speaking, most PC users have a very crude and simplistic view when they talking about computers, all they care about is the list price, the clock speed or the size of hard drive. Mac users are more sophisticated in the sense that they consider the total cost of ownership, the build quality, the design, the style, the productivity as well as the performance.
A friend of mine has been a PC user for all these years up till 3 weeks ago when she bought an LCD iMac, and she just adored it, including little things like the bouncing icons, the genie effect, the smooth text, the shadow and transparency.
Please explain why you think that is the case.
you don't want everyone seeing your picture, encrypt it and send it to a friend.
If i encrypt a picture and send it to a friend, they simply unencrypt it and send it to some other "friend".
Without a comprehensive DRM scheme, there is no way to "give with restrictions". It's either give, or dont give.
Point taken about outputting the image to a DVI panel. You do know that there are provisions for anti-sniff DVI work, right ?
MS doesn't want to make an MS computer, because there's no money in hardware, and they know it. There is money in software. The xbox is a platform that puts MS in a good position to make lots of money on software - games.
I've had conversations with a few of the people actually working at MS on the drm/palladium stuff. It's funny that you're trying to tell me what MS's plans are in this regard.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Compared to user #616, probably. ;)
But no, I'm just a sarcastic SOB.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
However, making DRM mandatory in players and preventing non RIAA bands from creating DRM signed media is restraint of trade.
The point (that we say you've missed) is that if players only play DRM signed media, whoever controls the signing system decides who can distribute music. If your new ultra-cd player only plays DRM signed music, your favorite non-signed band won't be able to make cds compatible with it.
In order for DRM to work, players must only play DRM signed content. Otherwise, you could burn the music to a traditional easy-to-copy CD and rip it back into a non-DRM format.
The RIAA won't let you do that for two reasons. A) they actually don't want people copying their music. B) they do want to make it difficult for non-RIAA bands to distribute music. If you think that the DRM laws will be fair to non RIAA bands, ask a local musician if he ever recieved a penny from the piracy compensation tax on CD-Rs. He didn't, but the RIAA did.
t'nera semordnilap
I've been a longtime x86 user, and if it wasn't for BSD this would be enough to get me to switch to Mac
How about NetBSD or OpenBSD?
Heck you can even run Linus' OS (I forget the name)
Trolling is a art,
RJ "Guiness, quite possibly the world's most perfect food."
"Guinness, the world's perfect food with the proper spelling."
:PPP
Trolling is a art,
"But neither Linux or Microsoft actually seem to develop intuitive interfaces and software that Just Works."
Linux is not a company.
Windows isn't intuitive. Neither is Mac OS. Both are learned.
This is WRONG
Apple SUPPORTS digital rights management in it's latest iPod devices.
It supports audible audiobooks, which are DRM-style audio books.
You "enable" an audible device (and you can enable only so many), and they your watermarked/locked content only can play on that device.
See the ipod page for a little info.
I Ripped, Mixed and Burned the Jaguar install cds, and the developer cd for a friend earlier today. Thanks for making thievery so convenient, Apple!
allow me to take screenshots for reviews.
I like the Windows UI. I use my keyboard for more stuff than the mouse. Tab is good. Alt+F4. Alt+Accelerator keys. Ctrl+Tab. Y. Esc. Ctrl+Esc. Alt+Tab. Alt+Enter.
So many keystrokes... many of which just simply do not exist in many other OS. I'm not saying that the keystroke has to be the same... I'm saying that often, there is no way to do a task without a mouse. It's frustrating.
But despite all that... I still might switch to OSX (or OS11, or OS12, or whatever is out by then) if that's the only platform not implimenting DRM in five years.
At least the UI is better than the offerings that run under X.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Palladium isn't about jpegs, picts, movies, etc... it's about controlling the types of software that can run on your computer.
No- palladium has nothing to do with what type of software can run on your computer. Every single piece of software that runs on a non-palladium pc will run on a palladium pc. That was one of the design requirements of palladium.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Apple, trying to hold a slice of the pie for itself, must charge more to have the money to stay in the game. If Apple isnt' slightly ahead at all times, they will fall under, fast and irreversibly.
Linux needs people to do work for it, and already numbers are decreasing per user ratio. This was bound to happen as Linux is not just for the kernel hackers anymore.
<RANT>Microsoft is just a bastard child of good marketing and industry cheating. There is no reason for them to expect what they expect of users, or treat them with the disrespect they do. Nor is it responisble of them to be careless and release bug-filled software, as I'm sure they don't do completely on purpose, but look at the stradegy this way:
- Rush a project to market. Early adopters buy. People are locked into the solution.
- Profit!
- Major bugs and incompatabilities are discovered. Charge for updates.
- Profit!
- Introduce Version 2.0 (Go back to step one)
Now, all computer companies are guilty of this, and software not being perfect, will always require after-version tweaks and such, but with the frequency it happens with Microsoft products, one has to wonder if they're doing it on purpose.</RANT>That is why I can hold my head high as an Apple supporter. Apple may just be another scumbag corporation, but at least they try to do it right for the arm and a leg they charge to stay in business.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
>Heck you can even run Linus' OS (I forget the name)
Not to start another platform war here, but Linus T. does not have an OS, Linux has a kernel.
BSD is an OS, GNU is an OS, Linux is a kernel.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Well, let's see, with WineX, I can play Diablo, Starcraft, any Warcraft, Stronghold, Deus Ex, and Counter Strike just to name a few.
Oh, and then there's the ports of the Doom games, the Quake games, Freespace 2, Heroes of Might and Magic, Soldier of Fortune, Rune, and a coming version of Neverwinter Nights that will all run natively on Linux.
Oh, and I can still play all my old awesome DOS games, too!
Now I will admit, I'm not familiar with what Mac supports, but don't imply that Linux can't play games.
I think I'm going to go boot my Gentoo UT2003-Live CD and load UT2003 into memory and have a fragging good time. Talk to you later. =)
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
A slight correction, Apple does not own Aqua, because their own court case made it legal precedent that you cannot own a "look and feel". Yes, Apple act like they own it, but this is because the law is not the same as justice. They have no legal right to send threatening letters to theme creators, if it went to court they'd lose. But of course, nobody wants to go to court, do they?
> not gonna happen. ever.
probably not gonna happen. again.
is more like it
True, but they do have a copyright on the artwork itself, and theme creators that lifted Aqua directly where the first to be targeted and are a higher priority, I'm sure, than Joe Gumdrop-Looking-Theme Designer.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I am too ... I'm a Unix sysadmin by trade, and I have to say that if I had to administer OSX as a server OS, I'd be going crazy. I use Solaris because it works and scales wonderfully. I'm about to get our first Superdome, so I guess I'll have to reacquaint myself with my 'ol friend Sam...
Anyway, back to the Mac -- like I said, if I had to admin it as a server, I'd be going crazy. But for my desktop, nothing beats it. When I get home from work, the last thing on the green Earth I want to do is have to fight with my computer. I just hit a key on the keyboard, and it wakes up from sleep instantly, ready to go. It's all those sort of little things that make the "whole solution" what it is ---
Mac OS X wouldn't be 1/1000th of what it is without the hardware integration. All those folks who kick and scream about 'apple needs to release osx for x86 or theyll die' obviously haven't ever used it.
It's the hardware, stupid. You absolutely can't get the OS to work that beautifully if you have to worry about supporting a Video Seven ISA board from 1989 in your OS... that sort of stuff is inherently unstable.
it's ok -- apple doesn't NEED more than 5% of the market anyway. What's BMW's market share?