I don't think you all (generalization) are fully understanding the issues here. Ebay has NOT contested the patent. They have in fact chosen to legitimize the patent by their actions. They have much MORE to lose by having the patent (and others like it) overturned. They have simply tried to bypass the process of paying for it, and draw out the legal process.
This is about one company trying to get away with something, because they are bigger, and can make it take forever in court. Eventually if things don't go their way, they might consider addressing the validity of the patent itself, but that is at least 5 years off. Until then they are just 'negotiating' the cost of this (obviously bad) patent. This is how companies do business.
Well, I think you have the right idea... However THIS is what I would suggest.
Require RADIO to pay these fees as well, and remove any option for a negotiated deal with individual studios. Make everyone pay the same fees...
Terrestrial Radio has a much bigger lobby, and if they had to pay similar fees, they would fight this every step of the way. This would force the established media to fight for the rights of the new media... because they have been lumped together.
The patent system was never intended to protect ideas. Trying to make it do this is just problematic... and unrealistic. What the patent system CAN do is patent a process... or way of doing something. Let me give an example.
When the telegraph was invented... they used Morse code to send messages. The patent system could be used to protect THAT process. The use of a specific unique code to send messages. If anyone wanted to use Morse code, they would have to pay the patent.
What could NOT be patented was the ability to send messages using a series of electronic signals. If someone wanted to come up with their own version of Morse code, they could. It would not be protected by the patent.
The problem with today's patent system is that it DOES allow for the patenting of an idea.... despite the fact that it is not practical, nor is it viable. This means that people can patent the ability to send messages using a series of electronic signals. This is where we are today.
Many people get caught on the idea of originality. They also get caught on the idea of who came up with it first. The patent system is not about either of these. It is about granting economic rights to whomever meets the requirements set forth. The value of the economic rights is determined by the uniqueness of the patent.
What does this mean? Well anyone can patent anything... but for the patent to have any value, it must provide a tangible benefit to those that use it. If they do not believe it does, then they do not have to pay for it. The patent holder can then take his claim to court.. and establish the value of the patent. This value is determined not by its TOTAL worth (as is currently used) but by its unique value (the difference that the patent made).
In the example of Morse code. The value can be determined by the cost of the employees. The creation of a code that represents letters is not unique. It is a basic replacement cypher, and those have been done for centuries. However the application of a standardized code that is used across a wide spread area does have inherent value because of the training of employees. The cost of training employees at different stations in a NEW code, is the value of Morse code... not the cost of all the messages sent.
The value of invention is not in its existence... it is in its application. No inventor should be rewarded for creating potential. The reward for that is the ability to monetize that potential with an application... that is self rewarding. The inventor should be rewarded for their application, and granted a limited monopoly so that they can benefit from that application (so any patent that goes unused... does not provide value in of itself). There is no need to grant a monopoly on an application that is not being used... as this provides no benefit to either society, or to the inventor. This is why inventions used to require an actual prototype.... (i.e. if you cant build it, you cant patent the ability for someone else to build it either).
Intellectual property can not be protected. That is the reality. Ideas are not something that you can restrict, nor should they be. The only thing that can be protected is the APPLICATION of an idea. No one can patent the concept of round... but you can get a lock on the wheel market. Numerical values, despite being useful, are not something that can be protected. You cant patent Pi, despite the fact that knowledge of it provides a great advantage.
The value of information is that not everyone knows it. The ability to spread that information does not necessarily diminish its value... unless it can be found and used. If you publish a compression algorithm, along with thousands of similar algorithms, they are not of any value... unless they can be used. If it can be used in any number of ways... then it has no value (air is important, but it is free because it is plentiful). The value is in the use... and that is where the focus should be... not in the information (which is always free).
If you have something great, charge people to use it... don't sell the idea, sell the service. Let them log on to your servers... where you compress the data, and let others access it as needed. You now have the ability to do something your competitors don't...
This is how business works. If you can do a better job than others, you should be able to make money doing it. You should not be making money because you THOUGHT of a way to do a better job. People pay for results.... Sell them something that is valuable... a service, not something that they can make valuable (the idea).
There is a very basic rule of thumb (that seems to have been forgotten)
If it will save lives more often than not, it is a good idea.
If the device only works for 2 weeks, then they are better off (i.e. safer) for that two week period. The example I was given (when I was in the military) was this. If you are a soldier in the field, pick option A or option B.
A. No Ammo.
B. Ammo that misfires 20% of the time.
Every soldier (that I know) would rather have option B... because option A gets them killed, whereas option B gives them a chance. The problem has always been that soldiers are not TOLD that it is option B, and they die because they did not know that it might have a high failure rate. When developing equipment during an active war, it is more important to get it deployed, and have the problems identified, and let the people work around them... than to let people get killed because they didn't have the tools needed.
Government by its definition is the will of the people. Good or bad, it exists to do what the people as a whole want/need.
In the US there is the option to buy clean power (you can tell your utility that is all you will accept). However the cost is much higher than if you bought whatever power is available. People don't choose this because of the cost.
The reality is that there are not enough sources of green power. For many reasons they were not built, and the choice is basically pollution or power. People choose to have power.
If green power choices are targeted at the expensive end of the power curve, they are CHEAPER than what people are paying right now. This allows people to have both a cost savings, and to reduce pollution. This is where solar is viable.
However the problem is that solar is marketed as a replacement solution. This causes and increase in the cost per unit, as it has to replace the cheap power as well. This makes it less attractive, and creates a net loss, rather than a net gain. So it is not adopted. Everyone loses because of false promises. Whereas the truth is that everyone could gain, if the truth were told.
As for coal and wood. Well, they both release carbon dioxide in high volumes. Yes, you could plant trees, however the reality is that we burn more than we recover. With the diminishing rain forest, and the decrease in the plant life available, we can not depend on it to remove the pollution.
There is a cost for connecting one location to another. It is MUCH less than making every location 100% independant.
As for choice of green vs pollution... well that has nothing to do with centralization vs independance. The two are mutually exclusive. You can have either green or pollution based solutions with both. Most homes (in the US) are heated with natural gas or heating oil. I am not even getting into wood or coal burning. So stating that home solutions are generally green is a false statement.
The reason that there are less large scale green power facilites, as compared to large scale polluting power facilities is due to cost. Pollution is cheaper. This is something that can be set by government, and controlled... as long as people are willing to pay the price for going green.
The market will work out the most cost effective method, that is what it does. It is up to the people to limit which methods are available (via governement) to maintain a minimum of secondary effects.
Now what I stated is that if Solar was promoted as a way to decrease the overall load, and used where cost efficient, it would be in greater use, and everone would benefit. However due to poor, and often false markting, it is often not used. False claims do not help anyone. There is merit in the current technology, however it is NOT the merit that is pushed, and as such it causes reputation damage.
When you can figure out how to produce a small scale more efficiently than the large hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind or even solar farms... then you will be rich. If smaller is better, the money will follow. Till then, centralized power is the best available. I don't have to prove the laws of physics, to be able to observe the effects.
If you can do it on a small scale, and outperform large power plants... go into business.
People don't make huge factories because they are less efficient than small shops. They make them because it allows them the most efficient, and effective means to make things.
The same applies to power generation. If they could make power cheaper by spreading it out... do you really think that they wouldn't be generating it closer to you (so as to make more money). What is my proof? Well, just look at the balance sheet of the local utility... they are in business to make money selling you power. Do I have to prove that they want to do less, and make more? (or do you not believe in business either?)
As with all things, there are many different opinions, and the facts that are often in between. The reality is that a Solar Powered home that is either 100% efficient, or one that puts electricity back on the grid is a BAD idea...
Just as with manufacturing, production of electricity, and its distribution is much more efficient when done in a large scale. Putting solar panels on every house, to produce 100% of the power, will never be as good for the environment or cost efficient. Howerver putting solar panels on houses to produce SOME of the power locally is both environmentally sound, and cost efficient. Let me explain why.
Most customers are charged a flat tiered rate for thier power. This means that they get charged a small amount at a low rate, then a another amount at a higher rate, and so on. This means that the more that they use, the more it cost them. Reducing thier useage a LITTLE can produce a LARGE return, because they are reducing the most expensive power first. This provides them with diminishing returns as they become more efficient.
The second most common fee schedule is based on peak/off peak usage. In this model consumers are charged more during peak hours, and less during off peak hours. In this instance, solar is (generally) a good idea, as it again reduces thier most expensive power charges.
Now, the question is about selling power back to the electric company. The situation is different there. The electric company only has to pay the bulk rate power cost for anything you generate. This is much less than what they charge you (even if during peak hours, w/ a peak/off peak rate). This means that you get even LESS for your energy than if you were just offsetting your own cost.
The optimal goal for solar (and other green energy sources) generated at the home is to offset the high of your energy. This reduces the load for the power generating plants, and in fact allows them to scale back some of the most inefficient (and pollution generating) models. The problem is that the demand for energy requires that we use non green methods to produce power. If the demand is reduced to allow the options of what power to use, then the choice of green vs non-green is valid.
If more people were informed of the realities of solar, and not promised things that were not true, then it would be more prevasive... and we would all benefit.
Please check the facts. The 'downgrading' of the HD media, is to that of 'normal' media. So in effect, you get what you have today... without Vista. As for multiple media types, yes, there is a crossover. If you are playing multiple types simultaneously... but not if you play them independantly. This only applies to situations where (for example) the video has DRM but the sound does not.
As for those distorted pictures and lossy audio... well that is what they get right now. The 'degraded' version is what they are getting without Vista...
MS doesnt make media (unless you count some webcasts as media). The consumers have never ASKED MS to go into the media business (I must have missed the crowds clamoring for MS produced TV and Movies). What thier customers have asked for is the abilty to PLAY the media. It is the media producers that determine what the requirements are for that. I am not aware of any HD media formats that do not require DRM, and that are not being supported. MS hasnt colluded, they have done business. If people dont want DRM media, then they dont have to buy it... and the producers will have to either lose money, or drop the DRM. This has nothing to do with Vista. It has to do with the media itself.
The media cartels have produced DRM free media in the past, and will do so again in the future (if they cant sell DRM media). However lack of a player for HD media wont get them to create DRM free HD media (as it still cant be played DRM or not).
Since you seem to have difficulties... let me be clear. I can have DRM free media, and they can still make players that play DRM media. I do it today, and will do it in the future. Your inability to purchase DRM free media, becase of the existance of a player for DRM media is no ones problem but your own. Get over it.
Luckily the make software that plays both media. Yes most of it starts out with DRM, but unless it includes the options I want (DRM free) then I dont buy it. I do however buy players that do both... because it gives me what I want (DRM free). I guess you cant have that, as you would rather have nothing, because they also include the option for DRM content.
MS is making money in different ways from this. First they are getting increased sales from Vista because it allows acess to HD media. (There are plenty of people that purchase things BECAUSE it has features, not because it does not). Second they are making money on licensing. I am reasonable certain that they will end up making money with licencing, and through partnership deals (this is MS after all).
As for rights... well you have them until you give them up. However, you seem to believe that you give them up by having a system that can play DRM media, rather than by purchasing DRM media. I can purchase an IPOD for its ease of use, and for its features (one of which is the ability to play AAC files). I can then use it with MP3's or AAC files as I see fit. If I object to the issue of DRM on the AAC, I can protest by not buying the file. However not buying the IPOD wouldnt have any effect, or even be relevent.
The same applies to Vista. If I dont like the DRM on the HD media... I dont buy the media. However I can buy Vista, for many reasons... one of which is the OPTION to play HD media, if I so choose. You seem to think that citizens that exercise thier right to choose are somehow second class. However the reality is that you dont have a choice... as you exclude those options that might give them to you. So in reality you are living in a prison of your own making... and are powerless to affect or influence the real world.
How about every gas station out there...
Or every jewelry store that sells diamonds...
or every electrician that wires a house the the grid...
I am sure I can think of more, but why bother, the point is clear. Business make money. MS could have told media cartels to F@$# Off!, but that would have COST them money, not made them any.
The reality is that no one (reasonable) is going to refuse to buy Vista because it CAN do something, and go out and find an alternative that will not support HD media, because they can just choose to NOT purchase the media. However the opposite is NOT true. People would go out and find another way to play HD media, if Vista didnt support it.
As for who benefits... well only the user. Media cartels make thier money when they sell the media. Users only benefit when they can play it (and yes, many people end up buying media that they cant play, only to find out afterwards). More options are better for the consumer, not less.
If you dont like DRM, then dont buy it. However dont be fooled into thinking that people will protest the ability to play DRM. Just look at IPods. No one (reasonable) ever said, 'I wont buy an IPOD, because it can play AAC, and isnt just limited to MP3s'. Why should they do this with Vista?
As far as I am aware, Vista is the ONLY OS available (soon) that will play Blu-Ray or HD DVD's. However the reality is that the computer is NOT the main delivery system for this type of media. In fact, it is a minority compared to DVD players, and will most likely be but a small % of the market for HD or Blu-Ray players. The reality is that more people watch video on Televisions, and dedicated devices, than do on computers (despite a bias on slashdot).
Microsoft has gone the extra step to allow people to acess Blu-Ray and HD video content on a computer using Vista... but they didnt set the requirements. Just because it is simpler to meet the standards with a VCR like device, than with a computer, does not mean that Vista is going to fail, because people dont want to buy the new hardware for thier machine. There is NO additional cost for this feature... only the option to use it if you have the requirements. The fact that you can actually view the media, but at a degraded quality, back to 'normal' shows that in fact, this is just a benefit... not an expense.
I have stated that you have to buy new hardware to play new media types. People have complained that this was unreasonable. So I asked how much of thier hardware was FORWARD compatable... i.e. able to play new standards that came out after the hardware was built...
Some people seem to think that they should be able to use thier old hardware for new media... and blame Vista that it doesnt work. The point I was making is that Vista has nothing to do with this problem.
So you have multiple devices that play MP3's. How many of them were build before MP3's were available? Most likely none.
How many TV's are there that can play 1080i... that were built before the specification? Again, most likely none (or very few).
As as been said before. If you want to play MP3's on Vista.. it doesnt require anything new. However if you want to play HD video, or Blu-Ray or any of the standards that require new hardware (and software) you will either have to upgrade or do without. Nothing about Vista changes this.
You can go out and by a Blu-Ray disc... but without the right hardware, you cant play it. If you want to play it on a computer, you have the right hardware and software. Vista will qualify as the right software. In no way will Vista suffer because they offer the option to acess new HD media, if you have the correct hardware (and drivers).
However if Vista did NOT support this... then it WOULD suffer. People would be upset that they have the right hardware, but that Vista did not support it. Heck, this is going to be problem with Linux. You can have all of the right hardware, and it stil cant acess the media. Now THAT is a problem.
As for degradation of premium content... well if I can play a HD moving degraded down to normal quality... because I dont have the hardware/drivers to play it at HD quality... why am I upset that I didnt get something for nothing?
Just in case you are not aware... Blu-Ray is a sony format. They also make consumer electronics... you know the things used to play these discs. You dont have to have Vista to play a Blu-Ray disc. You just have to have it to play the disc on a computer...
Remember, this is all about NEW formats. If you want to change, you have to accept thier rules. If you dont like the rules, just stick with what you have. Vista has no affect on this. It is all about the MEDIA, not the OS.
Vista has nothing to do with whether you can use the hardware as you like. The requirement is set on the MEDIA not the OS. So Vista only allows you to use your hardware... the limitations are on the media, which is NOT the focus of this article.
Your statements are correct... but you have also failed to mention that if you dont have Vista... NONE of this is an option. The requirements are NOT set by the OS. They are set by the makers of the Blu-Ray disk. Sure if you can get a non-DRM blue ray disc, then none of this matters. However, the fact that Vista ALLOWS you to make this choice (good or bad) is a BENEFIT.
The article makes the claim that there are higher requirements for new media. They then state that if we do not meet these requirements, that we are stuck with low quality content...
Why is this a problem? To play blue ray you have to have a blue ray player. To play DRM protected media you have to have authorized drivers. Yes DRM sucks, but who honestly thinks that it is unreasonable to require new hardware and new drivers for new technology. Don't have a HD card? cant play HD movies.
Vista isn't the evil (or even bad choice) here. The problem is that the newest (and supposedly best) media is coming with DRM requirements. If Vista doesn't support those requirements, then it cant access the media. Giving it the ability to meet a specification isn't bad... it is good. You may not like the specification, but you have the option to use it or not. If Vista didn't support it, you wouldn't have that option at all.
So, again, where is the problem here?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you all (generalization) are fully understanding the issues here. Ebay has NOT contested the patent. They have in fact chosen to legitimize the patent by their actions. They have much MORE to lose by having the patent (and others like it) overturned. They have simply tried to bypass the process of paying for it, and draw out the legal process. This is about one company trying to get away with something, because they are bigger, and can make it take forever in court. Eventually if things don't go their way, they might consider addressing the validity of the patent itself, but that is at least 5 years off. Until then they are just 'negotiating' the cost of this (obviously bad) patent. This is how companies do business.
Well, I think you have the right idea...
However THIS is what I would suggest.
Require RADIO to pay these fees as well, and remove any option for a negotiated deal with individual studios. Make everyone pay the same fees...
Terrestrial Radio has a much bigger lobby, and if they had to pay similar fees, they would fight this every step of the way. This would force the established media to fight for the rights of the new media... because they have been lumped together.
Are you suggesting that you would push your wife out the airlock.... to give her some 'space'.
The patent system was never intended to protect ideas. Trying to make it do this is just problematic... and unrealistic. What the patent system CAN do is patent a process... or way of doing something. Let me give an example.
When the telegraph was invented... they used Morse code to send messages. The patent system could be used to protect THAT process. The use of a specific unique code to send messages. If anyone wanted to use Morse code, they would have to pay the patent.
What could NOT be patented was the ability to send messages using a series of electronic signals. If someone wanted to come up with their own version of Morse code, they could. It would not be protected by the patent.
The problem with today's patent system is that it DOES allow for the patenting of an idea.... despite the fact that it is not practical, nor is it viable. This means that people can patent the ability to send messages using a series of electronic signals. This is where we are today.
Many people get caught on the idea of originality. They also get caught on the idea of who came up with it first. The patent system is not about either of these. It is about granting economic rights to whomever meets the requirements set forth. The value of the economic rights is determined by the uniqueness of the patent.
What does this mean? Well anyone can patent anything... but for the patent to have any value, it must provide a tangible benefit to those that use it. If they do not believe it does, then they do not have to pay for it. The patent holder can then take his claim to court.. and establish the value of the patent. This value is determined not by its TOTAL worth (as is currently used) but by its unique value (the difference that the patent made).
In the example of Morse code. The value can be determined by the cost of the employees. The creation of a code that represents letters is not unique. It is a basic replacement cypher, and those have been done for centuries. However the application of a standardized code that is used across a wide spread area does have inherent value because of the training of employees. The cost of training employees at different stations in a NEW code, is the value of Morse code... not the cost of all the messages sent.
The value of invention is not in its existence... it is in its application. No inventor should be rewarded for creating potential. The reward for that is the ability to monetize that potential with an application... that is self rewarding. The inventor should be rewarded for their application, and granted a limited monopoly so that they can benefit from that application (so any patent that goes unused... does not provide value in of itself). There is no need to grant a monopoly on an application that is not being used... as this provides no benefit to either society, or to the inventor. This is why inventions used to require an actual prototype.... (i.e. if you cant build it, you cant patent the ability for someone else to build it either).
Intellectual property can not be protected. That is the reality. Ideas are not something that you can restrict, nor should they be. The only thing that can be protected is the APPLICATION of an idea. No one can patent the concept of round... but you can get a lock on the wheel market. Numerical values, despite being useful, are not something that can be protected. You cant patent Pi, despite the fact that knowledge of it provides a great advantage. The value of information is that not everyone knows it. The ability to spread that information does not necessarily diminish its value... unless it can be found and used. If you publish a compression algorithm, along with thousands of similar algorithms, they are not of any value... unless they can be used. If it can be used in any number of ways... then it has no value (air is important, but it is free because it is plentiful). The value is in the use... and that is where the focus should be... not in the information (which is always free).
If you have something great, charge people to use it... don't sell the idea, sell the service. Let them log on to your servers... where you compress the data, and let others access it as needed. You now have the ability to do something your competitors don't...
This is how business works. If you can do a better job than others, you should be able to make money doing it. You should not be making money because you THOUGHT of a way to do a better job. People pay for results.... Sell them something that is valuable... a service, not something that they can make valuable (the idea).
This is not something that can be tolerated. Time to invade Denmark. I am sure that President Bush would agree.
There is a very basic rule of thumb (that seems to have been forgotten) If it will save lives more often than not, it is a good idea. If the device only works for 2 weeks, then they are better off (i.e. safer) for that two week period. The example I was given (when I was in the military) was this. If you are a soldier in the field, pick option A or option B. A. No Ammo. B. Ammo that misfires 20% of the time. Every soldier (that I know) would rather have option B... because option A gets them killed, whereas option B gives them a chance. The problem has always been that soldiers are not TOLD that it is option B, and they die because they did not know that it might have a high failure rate. When developing equipment during an active war, it is more important to get it deployed, and have the problems identified, and let the people work around them... than to let people get killed because they didn't have the tools needed.
Government by its definition is the will of the people. Good or bad, it exists to do what the people as a whole want/need.
In the US there is the option to buy clean power (you can tell your utility that is all you will accept). However the cost is much higher than if you bought whatever power is available. People don't choose this because of the cost.
The reality is that there are not enough sources of green power. For many reasons they were not built, and the choice is basically pollution or power. People choose to have power.
If green power choices are targeted at the expensive end of the power curve, they are CHEAPER than what people are paying right now. This allows people to have both a cost savings, and to reduce pollution. This is where solar is viable.
However the problem is that solar is marketed as a replacement solution. This causes and increase in the cost per unit, as it has to replace the cheap power as well. This makes it less attractive, and creates a net loss, rather than a net gain. So it is not adopted. Everyone loses because of false promises. Whereas the truth is that everyone could gain, if the truth were told.
As for coal and wood. Well, they both release carbon dioxide in high volumes. Yes, you could plant trees, however the reality is that we burn more than we recover. With the diminishing rain forest, and the decrease in the plant life available, we can not depend on it to remove the pollution.
There is a cost for connecting one location to another. It is MUCH less than making every location 100% independant.
As for choice of green vs pollution... well that has nothing to do with centralization vs independance. The two are mutually exclusive. You can have either green or pollution based solutions with both. Most homes (in the US) are heated with natural gas or heating oil. I am not even getting into wood or coal burning. So stating that home solutions are generally green is a false statement.
The reason that there are less large scale green power facilites, as compared to large scale polluting power facilities is due to cost. Pollution is cheaper. This is something that can be set by government, and controlled... as long as people are willing to pay the price for going green.
The market will work out the most cost effective method, that is what it does. It is up to the people to limit which methods are available (via governement) to maintain a minimum of secondary effects.
Now what I stated is that if Solar was promoted as a way to decrease the overall load, and used where cost efficient, it would be in greater use, and everone would benefit. However due to poor, and often false markting, it is often not used. False claims do not help anyone. There is merit in the current technology, however it is NOT the merit that is pushed, and as such it causes reputation damage.
When you can figure out how to produce a small scale more efficiently than the large hydro, geothermal, nuclear, wind or even solar farms... then you will be rich. If smaller is better, the money will follow. Till then, centralized power is the best available. I don't have to prove the laws of physics, to be able to observe the effects.
If you can do it on a small scale, and outperform large power plants... go into business. People don't make huge factories because they are less efficient than small shops. They make them because it allows them the most efficient, and effective means to make things. The same applies to power generation. If they could make power cheaper by spreading it out... do you really think that they wouldn't be generating it closer to you (so as to make more money). What is my proof? Well, just look at the balance sheet of the local utility... they are in business to make money selling you power. Do I have to prove that they want to do less, and make more? (or do you not believe in business either?)
As with all things, there are many different opinions, and the facts that are often in between. The reality is that a Solar Powered home that is either 100% efficient, or one that puts electricity back on the grid is a BAD idea... Just as with manufacturing, production of electricity, and its distribution is much more efficient when done in a large scale. Putting solar panels on every house, to produce 100% of the power, will never be as good for the environment or cost efficient. Howerver putting solar panels on houses to produce SOME of the power locally is both environmentally sound, and cost efficient. Let me explain why. Most customers are charged a flat tiered rate for thier power. This means that they get charged a small amount at a low rate, then a another amount at a higher rate, and so on. This means that the more that they use, the more it cost them. Reducing thier useage a LITTLE can produce a LARGE return, because they are reducing the most expensive power first. This provides them with diminishing returns as they become more efficient. The second most common fee schedule is based on peak/off peak usage. In this model consumers are charged more during peak hours, and less during off peak hours. In this instance, solar is (generally) a good idea, as it again reduces thier most expensive power charges. Now, the question is about selling power back to the electric company. The situation is different there. The electric company only has to pay the bulk rate power cost for anything you generate. This is much less than what they charge you (even if during peak hours, w/ a peak/off peak rate). This means that you get even LESS for your energy than if you were just offsetting your own cost. The optimal goal for solar (and other green energy sources) generated at the home is to offset the high of your energy. This reduces the load for the power generating plants, and in fact allows them to scale back some of the most inefficient (and pollution generating) models. The problem is that the demand for energy requires that we use non green methods to produce power. If the demand is reduced to allow the options of what power to use, then the choice of green vs non-green is valid. If more people were informed of the realities of solar, and not promised things that were not true, then it would be more prevasive... and we would all benefit.
Please check the facts. The 'downgrading' of the HD media, is to that of 'normal' media. So in effect, you get what you have today... without Vista. As for multiple media types, yes, there is a crossover. If you are playing multiple types simultaneously... but not if you play them independantly. This only applies to situations where (for example) the video has DRM but the sound does not. As for those distorted pictures and lossy audio... well that is what they get right now. The 'degraded' version is what they are getting without Vista...
MS doesnt make media (unless you count some webcasts as media). The consumers have never ASKED MS to go into the media business (I must have missed the crowds clamoring for MS produced TV and Movies). What thier customers have asked for is the abilty to PLAY the media. It is the media producers that determine what the requirements are for that. I am not aware of any HD media formats that do not require DRM, and that are not being supported. MS hasnt colluded, they have done business. If people dont want DRM media, then they dont have to buy it... and the producers will have to either lose money, or drop the DRM. This has nothing to do with Vista. It has to do with the media itself.
The media cartels have produced DRM free media in the past, and will do so again in the future (if they cant sell DRM media). However lack of a player for HD media wont get them to create DRM free HD media (as it still cant be played DRM or not).
Since you seem to have difficulties... let me be clear. I can have DRM free media, and they can still make players that play DRM media. I do it today, and will do it in the future. Your inability to purchase DRM free media, becase of the existance of a player for DRM media is no ones problem but your own. Get over it.
Luckily the make software that plays both media. Yes most of it starts out with DRM, but unless it includes the options I want (DRM free) then I dont buy it. I do however buy players that do both... because it gives me what I want (DRM free). I guess you cant have that, as you would rather have nothing, because they also include the option for DRM content.
MS is making money in different ways from this. First they are getting increased sales from Vista because it allows acess to HD media. (There are plenty of people that purchase things BECAUSE it has features, not because it does not). Second they are making money on licensing. I am reasonable certain that they will end up making money with licencing, and through partnership deals (this is MS after all). As for rights... well you have them until you give them up. However, you seem to believe that you give them up by having a system that can play DRM media, rather than by purchasing DRM media. I can purchase an IPOD for its ease of use, and for its features (one of which is the ability to play AAC files). I can then use it with MP3's or AAC files as I see fit. If I object to the issue of DRM on the AAC, I can protest by not buying the file. However not buying the IPOD wouldnt have any effect, or even be relevent. The same applies to Vista. If I dont like the DRM on the HD media... I dont buy the media. However I can buy Vista, for many reasons... one of which is the OPTION to play HD media, if I so choose. You seem to think that citizens that exercise thier right to choose are somehow second class. However the reality is that you dont have a choice... as you exclude those options that might give them to you. So in reality you are living in a prison of your own making... and are powerless to affect or influence the real world.
How about every gas station out there... Or every jewelry store that sells diamonds... or every electrician that wires a house the the grid... I am sure I can think of more, but why bother, the point is clear. Business make money. MS could have told media cartels to F@$# Off!, but that would have COST them money, not made them any. The reality is that no one (reasonable) is going to refuse to buy Vista because it CAN do something, and go out and find an alternative that will not support HD media, because they can just choose to NOT purchase the media. However the opposite is NOT true. People would go out and find another way to play HD media, if Vista didnt support it. As for who benefits... well only the user. Media cartels make thier money when they sell the media. Users only benefit when they can play it (and yes, many people end up buying media that they cant play, only to find out afterwards). More options are better for the consumer, not less. If you dont like DRM, then dont buy it. However dont be fooled into thinking that people will protest the ability to play DRM. Just look at IPods. No one (reasonable) ever said, 'I wont buy an IPOD, because it can play AAC, and isnt just limited to MP3s'. Why should they do this with Vista?
As far as I am aware, Vista is the ONLY OS available (soon) that will play Blu-Ray or HD DVD's. However the reality is that the computer is NOT the main delivery system for this type of media. In fact, it is a minority compared to DVD players, and will most likely be but a small % of the market for HD or Blu-Ray players. The reality is that more people watch video on Televisions, and dedicated devices, than do on computers (despite a bias on slashdot). Microsoft has gone the extra step to allow people to acess Blu-Ray and HD video content on a computer using Vista... but they didnt set the requirements. Just because it is simpler to meet the standards with a VCR like device, than with a computer, does not mean that Vista is going to fail, because people dont want to buy the new hardware for thier machine. There is NO additional cost for this feature... only the option to use it if you have the requirements. The fact that you can actually view the media, but at a degraded quality, back to 'normal' shows that in fact, this is just a benefit... not an expense.
I have stated that you have to buy new hardware to play new media types. People have complained that this was unreasonable. So I asked how much of thier hardware was FORWARD compatable... i.e. able to play new standards that came out after the hardware was built... Some people seem to think that they should be able to use thier old hardware for new media... and blame Vista that it doesnt work. The point I was making is that Vista has nothing to do with this problem.
So you have multiple devices that play MP3's. How many of them were build before MP3's were available? Most likely none. How many TV's are there that can play 1080i... that were built before the specification? Again, most likely none (or very few). As as been said before. If you want to play MP3's on Vista.. it doesnt require anything new. However if you want to play HD video, or Blu-Ray or any of the standards that require new hardware (and software) you will either have to upgrade or do without. Nothing about Vista changes this. You can go out and by a Blu-Ray disc... but without the right hardware, you cant play it. If you want to play it on a computer, you have the right hardware and software. Vista will qualify as the right software. In no way will Vista suffer because they offer the option to acess new HD media, if you have the correct hardware (and drivers). However if Vista did NOT support this... then it WOULD suffer. People would be upset that they have the right hardware, but that Vista did not support it. Heck, this is going to be problem with Linux. You can have all of the right hardware, and it stil cant acess the media. Now THAT is a problem. As for degradation of premium content... well if I can play a HD moving degraded down to normal quality... because I dont have the hardware/drivers to play it at HD quality... why am I upset that I didnt get something for nothing?
Just in case you are not aware... Blu-Ray is a sony format. They also make consumer electronics... you know the things used to play these discs. You dont have to have Vista to play a Blu-Ray disc. You just have to have it to play the disc on a computer... Remember, this is all about NEW formats. If you want to change, you have to accept thier rules. If you dont like the rules, just stick with what you have. Vista has no affect on this. It is all about the MEDIA, not the OS.
Vista has nothing to do with whether you can use the hardware as you like. The requirement is set on the MEDIA not the OS. So Vista only allows you to use your hardware... the limitations are on the media, which is NOT the focus of this article.
Your statements are correct... but you have also failed to mention that if you dont have Vista... NONE of this is an option. The requirements are NOT set by the OS. They are set by the makers of the Blu-Ray disk. Sure if you can get a non-DRM blue ray disc, then none of this matters. However, the fact that Vista ALLOWS you to make this choice (good or bad) is a BENEFIT.
The article makes the claim that there are higher requirements for new media. They then state that if we do not meet these requirements, that we are stuck with low quality content... Why is this a problem? To play blue ray you have to have a blue ray player. To play DRM protected media you have to have authorized drivers. Yes DRM sucks, but who honestly thinks that it is unreasonable to require new hardware and new drivers for new technology. Don't have a HD card? cant play HD movies. Vista isn't the evil (or even bad choice) here. The problem is that the newest (and supposedly best) media is coming with DRM requirements. If Vista doesn't support those requirements, then it cant access the media. Giving it the ability to meet a specification isn't bad... it is good. You may not like the specification, but you have the option to use it or not. If Vista didn't support it, you wouldn't have that option at all. So, again, where is the problem here?