Wow, by changing words in a paragraph you have changed its meaning to be related to the words you changed them to! Well done, you've cracked that conspiracy wiiiide open.
Since I don't have mod points, can I just say: thank you for being one of the few people here who is actually able to explain why Vista's DRM is a problem without resorting to "OMFG DRM IS EVIL INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!!11" type handwaving, and give proper technical reasons for it. I personally think the Vista DRM thing is overblown, but it's nice to see someone rationally argue against it, rather than scream about how evil it all is. Kudos.
At least someone gets it.;) I'd point out though that both do give you a way to drill down into internals if you really wish, and OS X is probably just a smidge easier.
On another, related note, I offered my family an upgrade to Vista on their computer the other day, as their XP Home install was about 25 seconds from exploding like a cheap Lada full of diesel oil and TNT. They said no, they'd rather wait for a bit. Nice...
It's probably worth mentioning that BBC News' Have Your Say website has an ongoing problem with people using Megaphone, and indeed spamming their views with upward moderations (there are no downmods and no threading, two reasons I made a HYS alternative, BrainSpeaker (see sig)). Not just pro-Israel views, but just anything broadly right wing and Daily Mail-ish.
This is only going to get worse, as people realise they can use technology not to debate, but to stifle debate and force their views upon others.
To be fair, I feel it's very unlikely that anyone still using Windows 2000 over XP or Vista is using IE. Most of W2Ks remaining users are techies; they're probably on Opera or Firefox by now.
Hey, sure, it might appeal to some people's political views.
But those political views are formed based on information derived almost solely from their chosen newspaper (possibly the Mail), and therefore derived from a source that has no shame in lying or at least distorting the truth. Perhaps if they got their news from a source which didn't have such a callous disregard for the truth, their views might be less extreme, but certainly quite different.
There's shouting at someone because you disagree with their position, and shouting them down because their position is widely respected and mimicked despite having no rational basis in reality.
True, reasoned dialogue is what everyone should be aiming for, but they aren't doing it to censure someone else's views, merely to avoid a pointlessly irrational viewpoint to be expounded at length.
That's not even a crime in the loosest sense. They sold you an MP3 with a watermark, and you reencoded it to MP4 or whatever; not their problem, they sold you a working MP3 file, which you fucked up by reencoding it. If I rejig my microwave into a particle accelerator, the manufacturer won't reimburse me if it doesn't cook me a ready meal when I want it to.
Meanwhile copyright violation is a tort, and therefore technically a crime.
Well, if this scheme is to work, the record corps will actually be going after their own paying -customers-
Who then committed a crime by distributing it to possibly hundreds of non-paying customers. Just because you bought a copyrighted work doesn't mean you get absolutely every right to do everything you like with it, including fucking over the person who sold it to you.
The watermark has no legitimate purpose to the consumer and represents possible risk
It is a way to prove you purchased the file, similar to a receipt. The only risk is if someone steals your MP3 player and, rather than wiping it and selling it/putting their own music on it, decides for some fucked up reason to upload it to P2P, cos I know that's what I'd do if I stole someone's iPod. (Note: heavy sarcasm.)
It puts a chilling effect on fair use.
How so?
What, you think if your roommate 'borrows' your iPod and puts all your songs on p2p you won't be found liable? Right.
No, you won't, because it'll be your roommate who infringes and you could call him as a witness or something.
Why would I keep it if I can easily remove it?
I could turn that around: why remove it? What's the point? All the negative points I've heard against watermarking are just outlandish, if not actually conspiracy theories.
some RIAA executive decides you are worth bringing down and spreads their own copies with your watermark
OK, I am so goddamn sick of hearing about this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that I'm going to ask right now:
WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY DO THAT?
Please give me a logical and cogent reason (which is not "The RIAA is bad/has done bad stuff" because that's just lame) for why the RIAA would intentionally frame its paying customers, of whom they had no suspicion of committing any illegal activity. Please. Given that piracy is a widespread enough problem, why would they need to frame legitimate customers as part of some fucked up crusade? What benefit would it bring them?
Slashdot, with its numerous Microsoft bashing and Linux praising articles, is owned by OSTG (or SourceForge, whatever it's called) which has everything to gain from, er, the promotion of Linux and F/OSS.
The problem is that what you are decrying is what, by and large, is being pirated. It's not worth paying for, but it's worth enough to some people to expend time and effort downloading it.
Think files watermarked with your account information. Think file sharing and litigation.
I think that and then think "Hang on, you shouldn't be sharing purchased MP3s over LimeWire anyway and as anyone who does has clearly broken the law anyways, I have no sympathy whatsoever."
In all iterations of the free market, businesses have products which they either produce or pay to have produced, and then sell. In Virgin's case that would be Daft Punk, as they bankroll the production, distribution and whatnot of the two French house-DJing robots from space's albums. In, say, Ford's case, that'd be a shitty car of some kind which they've paid to produce. Meanwhile, EMI have soppy Brits Coldplay and Chrysler have some fucking great SUV monstrosity, which they both sell.
My point is this:
If you want to listen to Daft Punk, you HAVE to get it from Virgin Records. There's no legal free market....is utter horseshit. That IS the free market; Virgin are selling their products at a price that, assuming Daft Punk's sales are shit, the market is willing to bear. Your saying that just because you can only get Daft Punk's music from Virgin it's not a free market is a lot like some penis saying that because they can't buy a shitty little exploding city car from Chrysler, it must be some kind of anti-free market shit and therefore stealing Fords is acceptable as "competition". Which again, is horseshit; no company should have to compete against their own products sold or otherwise distributed for unreasonable prices through illegal or barely legal means. That's not competition OR the free market, that's trading in stolen goods (please save me the shit about copying not being stealing, the end economic effect is roughly the same.)
Also, I would like to apologise for making my first and hopefully only car analogy on Slashdot, even if it was done in a roundabout way.;)
I avoided getting a new Apple keyboard, partly because I had no money and partly because I really didn't think the aluminium would fit my white iMac well (yes, I've turned into a Mac ponce, so sue me.) After the first problem got rectified, I snapped up the new KB, finding that having no volume key on OS X rendered me angry and bitter.
And goddammit, I love the fucking thing. Having a Dashboard and Expose key marked makes my life a million times easier, it looks amazing, built like a rock, the USB ports are intelligently placed (especially with the Mighty Mouse, which I avoid, having a cord about 2 feet long) and, of course, it's great to type on.
My only beef is that Apple makes it far too hard to tell which version Brits should order from their online store. There's English and English (International), and you are left with no idea of what to choose. (Protip for people with bad teeth: buy Apple stuff from John Lewis for the same amount of money, shorter shipping times and better service.)
If he's making more money than the people developing that software who have a comparable level of experience, then you're damn right it does.
You're not going to like this new development then. It's called "Real life", and in this "real life" HR managers make more money than coders, as do executives.
Shark72 was entirely correct in his summary; that if you work for a big corporation then you don't get as big a share of your success as someone who goes it alone and takes more risk.
The music buying public has plenty of competition. It has Creative Commons music, PD music, numerous independent bands or pub bands... to say that the RIAA has no feasible competition is a lie.
Whether most people actually WANT what that competition produces, however, is another matter entirely.
No, Microsoft is not to be blamed for Sony blatantly abusing what a large number of people consider a useful feature. Sony should, however, be invited to fuck themselves with a pineapple.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, by changing words in a paragraph you have changed its meaning to be related to the words you changed them to! Well done, you've cracked that conspiracy wiiiide open.
Since I don't have mod points, can I just say: thank you for being one of the few people here who is actually able to explain why Vista's DRM is a problem without resorting to "OMFG DRM IS EVIL INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!!!!11" type handwaving, and give proper technical reasons for it. I personally think the Vista DRM thing is overblown, but it's nice to see someone rationally argue against it, rather than scream about how evil it all is. Kudos.
At least someone gets it. ;) I'd point out though that both do give you a way to drill down into internals if you really wish, and OS X is probably just a smidge easier.
On another, related note, I offered my family an upgrade to Vista on their computer the other day, as their XP Home install was about 25 seconds from exploding like a cheap Lada full of diesel oil and TNT. They said no, they'd rather wait for a bit. Nice...
It's probably worth mentioning that BBC News' Have Your Say website has an ongoing problem with people using Megaphone, and indeed spamming their views with upward moderations (there are no downmods and no threading, two reasons I made a HYS alternative, BrainSpeaker (see sig)). Not just pro-Israel views, but just anything broadly right wing and Daily Mail-ish.
This is only going to get worse, as people realise they can use technology not to debate, but to stifle debate and force their views upon others.
To be fair, I feel it's very unlikely that anyone still using Windows 2000 over XP or Vista is using IE. Most of W2Ks remaining users are techies; they're probably on Opera or Firefox by now.
Hey, sure, it might appeal to some people's political views.
But those political views are formed based on information derived almost solely from their chosen newspaper (possibly the Mail), and therefore derived from a source that has no shame in lying or at least distorting the truth. Perhaps if they got their news from a source which didn't have such a callous disregard for the truth, their views might be less extreme, but certainly quite different.
There's shouting at someone because you disagree with their position, and shouting them down because their position is widely respected and mimicked despite having no rational basis in reality.
True, reasoned dialogue is what everyone should be aiming for, but they aren't doing it to censure someone else's views, merely to avoid a pointlessly irrational viewpoint to be expounded at length.
And here you have some free publicity as well.
You can't eat publicity, spend publicity or live on publicity.
seems like they are doing you a favor.
He's losing income because a load of freeloading losers like his game but don't want to pay for it, ever. How is that a favour?
That's not even a crime in the loosest sense. They sold you an MP3 with a watermark, and you reencoded it to MP4 or whatever; not their problem, they sold you a working MP3 file, which you fucked up by reencoding it. If I rejig my microwave into a particle accelerator, the manufacturer won't reimburse me if it doesn't cook me a ready meal when I want it to.
Meanwhile copyright violation is a tort, and therefore technically a crime.
Well, if this scheme is to work, the record corps will actually be going after their own paying -customers-
Who then committed a crime by distributing it to possibly hundreds of non-paying customers. Just because you bought a copyrighted work doesn't mean you get absolutely every right to do everything you like with it, including fucking over the person who sold it to you.
The watermark has no legitimate purpose to the consumer and represents possible risk
It is a way to prove you purchased the file, similar to a receipt. The only risk is if someone steals your MP3 player and, rather than wiping it and selling it/putting their own music on it, decides for some fucked up reason to upload it to P2P, cos I know that's what I'd do if I stole someone's iPod. (Note: heavy sarcasm.)
It puts a chilling effect on fair use.
How so?
What, you think if your roommate 'borrows' your iPod and puts all your songs on p2p you won't be found liable? Right.
No, you won't, because it'll be your roommate who infringes and you could call him as a witness or something.
Why would I keep it if I can easily remove it?
I could turn that around: why remove it? What's the point? All the negative points I've heard against watermarking are just outlandish, if not actually conspiracy theories.
some RIAA executive decides you are worth bringing down and spreads their own copies with your watermark
OK, I am so goddamn sick of hearing about this tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that I'm going to ask right now:
WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY DO THAT?
Please give me a logical and cogent reason (which is not "The RIAA is bad/has done bad stuff" because that's just lame) for why the RIAA would intentionally frame its paying customers, of whom they had no suspicion of committing any illegal activity. Please. Given that piracy is a widespread enough problem, why would they need to frame legitimate customers as part of some fucked up crusade? What benefit would it bring them?
That's not thwarting tyranny, that's being cheap. Stop pretending otherwise.
Slashdot, with its numerous Microsoft bashing and Linux praising articles, is owned by OSTG (or SourceForge, whatever it's called) which has everything to gain from, er, the promotion of Linux and F/OSS.
So, where's the full disclosure on this, hum?
All this says is if you want to be treated the same as normal journalists, stop with the damn childish pranks.
Funny, sure, but if PC World did the same their asses would be out the door as well.
The problem is that what you are decrying is what, by and large, is being pirated. It's not worth paying for, but it's worth enough to some people to expend time and effort downloading it.
Think files watermarked with your account information. Think file sharing and litigation.
I think that and then think "Hang on, you shouldn't be sharing purchased MP3s over LimeWire anyway and as anyone who does has clearly broken the law anyways, I have no sympathy whatsoever."
So these iTunes purchases made in the UK using a UK credit card by a Brit are figments of my fucking imagination?
What bullshit. Here's why:
...is utter horseshit. That IS the free market; Virgin are selling their products at a price that, assuming Daft Punk's sales are shit, the market is willing to bear. Your saying that just because you can only get Daft Punk's music from Virgin it's not a free market is a lot like some penis saying that because they can't buy a shitty little exploding city car from Chrysler, it must be some kind of anti-free market shit and therefore stealing Fords is acceptable as "competition". Which again, is horseshit; no company should have to compete against their own products sold or otherwise distributed for unreasonable prices through illegal or barely legal means. That's not competition OR the free market, that's trading in stolen goods (please save me the shit about copying not being stealing, the end economic effect is roughly the same.)
;)
In all iterations of the free market, businesses have products which they either produce or pay to have produced, and then sell. In Virgin's case that would be Daft Punk, as they bankroll the production, distribution and whatnot of the two French house-DJing robots from space's albums. In, say, Ford's case, that'd be a shitty car of some kind which they've paid to produce. Meanwhile, EMI have soppy Brits Coldplay and Chrysler have some fucking great SUV monstrosity, which they both sell.
My point is this:
If you want to listen to Daft Punk, you HAVE to get it from Virgin Records. There's no legal free market.
Also, I would like to apologise for making my first and hopefully only car analogy on Slashdot, even if it was done in a roundabout way.
That doesn't even make sense.
Try again, this time with funny.
I avoided getting a new Apple keyboard, partly because I had no money and partly because I really didn't think the aluminium would fit my white iMac well (yes, I've turned into a Mac ponce, so sue me.) After the first problem got rectified, I snapped up the new KB, finding that having no volume key on OS X rendered me angry and bitter.
And goddammit, I love the fucking thing. Having a Dashboard and Expose key marked makes my life a million times easier, it looks amazing, built like a rock, the USB ports are intelligently placed (especially with the Mighty Mouse, which I avoid, having a cord about 2 feet long) and, of course, it's great to type on.
My only beef is that Apple makes it far too hard to tell which version Brits should order from their online store. There's English and English (International), and you are left with no idea of what to choose. (Protip for people with bad teeth: buy Apple stuff from John Lewis for the same amount of money, shorter shipping times and better service.)
Yes, but the holy ESR has guns and could shoot us, so we try to avoid that particular tangle. ;)
If he's making more money than the people developing that software who have a comparable level of experience, then you're damn right it does.
You're not going to like this new development then. It's called "Real life", and in this "real life" HR managers make more money than coders, as do executives.
Shark72 was entirely correct in his summary; that if you work for a big corporation then you don't get as big a share of your success as someone who goes it alone and takes more risk.
The music buying public has plenty of competition. It has Creative Commons music, PD music, numerous independent bands or pub bands... to say that the RIAA has no feasible competition is a lie.
Whether most people actually WANT what that competition produces, however, is another matter entirely.
No, Microsoft is not to be blamed for Sony blatantly abusing what a large number of people consider a useful feature. Sony should, however, be invited to fuck themselves with a pineapple.