Also something to think about; Maybe people didn't like this seasons movies quite as much? Maybe people have spent their money elsewhere - the gaming industry should probably be sued since they have made more and more money every year! I bought more games last year than before and because of that spent less on movies.
I'm slightly more sympathetic to the movie industry, since making a movie costs considerably more and is hard to replicate (acting, scripting, filming).
Now, on the other hand, I do not have much sympathy for the recording industry, who charges way to much. If there were natural competition the situation would likely be totally different, my suggestion would be: Music artists should be able to go and record their songs to more than one of the studios and the studios would need to compete *against* each other, perhaps adding something along with the CD to increase the value or just not do as well as the next studio. What's wrong with that? So, first change: No exclusive contracts.
I seriously believe this would benefit both the artist and the consumer, ofcourse the studios couldn't have their ridiculous cuts/profits anymore since there would be real competition.
Re:GNOME's audio backend GStreamer to use DRM
on
A Look at GNOME 2.14
·
· Score: 1
Fluendo, the company that controls GStreamer, wants to link their DRM plugins to LGPL code contributed by the naive independent developers, who don't realize that by writing LGPL multimedia code, they might as well be working for the RIAA and MPAA.
And you do not have to use that DRM, since it is in plugin form. What comes to naïve independent developers, the people that for example has made gstreamer run on Nokia's webpad (770) are neither independent, nor naïve. GStreamer is acctually contributed to a lot by companies and this is where the LGPL enforcements are good.
So, for opensource to reach new people and markets, like mobile devices, it needs to be able to adapt and be agile and that also might require to support stuff that not all like.
IMHO you should quit whining since you do have a choise;
a) Use GStreamer with DRM-plugins that supports watching the latest junk from Holywood.
b) Use GStreamer without DRM-plugins and without the ability to (legaly) watch/listen to some content.
c) Use for example Xine-backend in the app.
Main thing, you have a choise.
And for the record, I do not like DRM either, but I unfortunatly do not see a future where you can be so black and white. I rather have a little evil than no good.
PS. Sorry to sound like a rant.
I don't see how this is any different from the phone (6130?) that Nokia released recently (which had an article here too, I think). The phone will use Wifi and VoIP for free calls if available.
Also, Skype is available for some mobile devices.
Just because it is Microsoft (and late in the game as usual) doesn't mean that the mobile Voip-ball isn't already rolling.
AFAIK you will be able to run Linux on the hardware without any problems. On the downside, the platform will run in "non-trusted" mode, thus blocking iTunes or similar music listening/buying.
What I question, if I have Windows installed and run it in "trusted mode", if I install Linux as dual boot and replace the bootloader with (for example) Grub or Lilo, will that disrupt the "trusted path" and in doing so also make windows run in "untrusted mode"?
Also I call BS on this. We read not too along ago about a Finnish music exec that said "it is a privilege to be able to play a CD in anything but a CD player". What at least the music industry would like is that you buy the same music again and again for all the different devices you own, or should I say "own".
And for what exactly is DRM needed in this case? You have basic encryption on file in windows at the moment, requiring a password (logon). If that is not good enough you can use SecuSafe or some other 3rd party tool that encrypts the whole harddrive, like on the previous company I was at.
If you use Linux there is a whole slew of encryption algorithms to use along with crypto loopback device. Yes, it still isn't "easy enough" to have all drives, including root encrypted as of this moment, but it is getting there in a while..
9. (...) If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version"
Which part is unclear? The kernel does not specify "GPLv2 or any later version", just GPLv2. So no, anyone cannot switch to GPLv3, only the original author.
You can refuse to do buissnes & associate with companies using DRM by *choosing* GPLv3. If you do not care about DRM, you can choose GPLv2, like Linus (for the kernel).
If a product is well designed and build you don't need frequent releases. In regards to features, most people don't want to do many things with a browser except view web pages, and it a browser does that good and creates a pleasant experience users don't care about features they wouldn't use anyway.
True, but the analogy when it comes to IE is more of a "mp3-player" that doesn't support other formats than WAV.
Unfortunatly the enduser doesn't see this lack, but the developers more so. A better browser would eventually translate to a better user experience (devs. need to go by lowest common denominator often, which is IE).
I have read through a lot of comments, but it seems noone has raised one issue: What if a company make a GPL program that contains DRM, only to then have a signature of the binary someplace that confirms it "authenic"? That only Suse, Redhat, Mandriva etc. can get "approved" in their distribution.
Wouldn't this technicly be GPL still, under its current version, even if in practice you couldn't compile it and expect it to work?
At least this is my view on how GPL and DRM might clash.
I have to disagree with you on this one. The vendor do not have to provide the drive FAT-formatted, in fact, the LaCie 300Gb drive I bought about half a year ago was preformatted with HFS+ (or what Mac native format is) and a leafleat with instructions if you wish to format it to NTFS in windows.
(I encrypted it and formatted it with reiserfs, but that is another story.)
There's a mountain of code that was written just to work, not to worry about being handed malicious data. If a user passed bad values to a system call and it crashed, oh well. It was their fault for doing it. It's not like they had anything to gain from it, after all. They owned the computer. Why on earth would the computer need to protect itself from its owner?
I agree that this is a positive development, what I think many object to is that they "try to do something to clean a mess they helped make" and then charges a price for the solution. MS-Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus etc. will likely all cost money.
Also to be seen is if it is just an effort to reach a goal or a process (like security is).
I assume they will not, since it seems Flock is just a differently skinned Firefox/Gecko-browser..
From their blog:
Monday, October 03, 2005
Chris Messina
Chris Messina
FactoryCity
17:14:09 Supah Cheap CSS Dropshadow Hack
So I came up with my very own stupid CSS hack to do dropshadows in Flock (and by reverse extension, Firefox). It's very much a hack and not one that I would generally recommend unless in very small quantities, but I like it because a) I invented it and b) it works for me(TM).So how [...]
Re:I actually have a fair amount of respect...
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
Badmouth the MPAA/RIAA all we want about their price fixing, scamming the artists, overpriced crap, and their attempts to royally screw over technology for their benefit, but we can't meet their wrongs with wrongs of our own. If you think really nasty and slimy people run a store or chain of stores, you shouldn't feel you are then entitled to shoplift. I disagree with their strategies and pricing levels, and I express this via my purchasing decisions. If I think a price is too high for a crappy experience, I decline to pay. My standards for what is justified is highly increased knowing what they want to do to fair use, and I actively seek non MPAA, non RIAA entertainment over MPAA/RIAA content.
I don't think "vote with your wallet" works in this case. If their revenues decrease they will just once more blame it on copyright infridgement, not on their practices.
Regarding DRM and such, you might have some success by buying and returning as a defective product, because if there is enough of that happening, it is bound to get to them sooner or later.
If you think you lost fair usage rights, that *AA have crappy stuff or practice price fixing, I think your opinion will have much better success being heard by writing a short column in NYT readers column (do they have?) or something similar.
In this light.. EDS might be the one to get the blame, but despite this I think that if they get 60000 machines up and running in one week, it is quite impressive. Mind, w/o network upgrades (?).
Nice to think - I takes *one* person and one day to bring down 60000 computers, but it takes probably 200-300 persons and a week to get them back..
This is no different from some admin writing an own update-script that (without checking) would just copy a new version of glibc to thousands of machines.. And the results could be very same.
Ever tried to rename/lib, or do an unsuccessfull attempt to switch from libc 5 to glibc (long ago), both cases ends in a less than fully functioning system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and this is a big part of the problem in my opinion...
The more the try to thighten their stranglehold, the more the alienate customers/conumers..
Also something to think about;
Maybe people didn't like this seasons movies quite as much?
Maybe people have spent their money elsewhere - the gaming industry should probably be sued since they have made more and more money every year! I bought more games last year than before and because of that spent less on movies.
I'm slightly more sympathetic to the movie industry, since making a movie costs considerably more and is hard to replicate (acting, scripting, filming).
Now, on the other hand, I do not have much sympathy for the recording industry, who charges way to much. If there were natural competition the situation would likely be totally different, my suggestion would be:
Music artists should be able to go and record their songs to more than one of the studios and the studios would need to compete *against* each other, perhaps adding something along with the CD to increase the value or just not do as well as the next studio. What's wrong with that?
So, first change: No exclusive contracts.
I seriously believe this would benefit both the artist and the consumer, ofcourse the studios couldn't have their ridiculous cuts/profits anymore since there would be real competition.
And you do not have to use that DRM, since it is in plugin form. What comes to naïve independent developers, the people that for example has made gstreamer run on Nokia's webpad (770) are neither independent, nor naïve. GStreamer is acctually contributed to a lot by companies and this is where the LGPL enforcements are good.
So, for opensource to reach new people and markets, like mobile devices, it needs to be able to adapt and be agile and that also might require to support stuff that not all like.
IMHO you should quit whining since you do have a choise;
a) Use GStreamer with DRM-plugins that supports watching the latest junk from Holywood.
b) Use GStreamer without DRM-plugins and without the ability to (legaly) watch/listen to some content.
c) Use for example Xine-backend in the app.
Main thing, you have a choise.
And for the record, I do not like DRM either, but I unfortunatly do not see a future where you can be so black and white. I rather have a little evil than no good.
PS. Sorry to sound like a rant.
I don't see how this is any different from the phone (6130?) that Nokia released recently (which had an article here too, I think). The phone will use Wifi and VoIP for free calls if available.
Also, Skype is available for some mobile devices.
Just because it is Microsoft (and late in the game as usual) doesn't mean that the mobile Voip-ball isn't already rolling.
AFAIK you will be able to run Linux on the hardware without any problems.
On the downside, the platform will run in "non-trusted" mode, thus blocking iTunes or similar music listening/buying.
What I question, if I have Windows installed and run it in "trusted mode", if I install Linux as dual boot and replace the bootloader with (for example) Grub or Lilo, will that disrupt the "trusted path" and in doing so also make windows run in "untrusted mode"?
Also I call BS on this.
We read not too along ago about a Finnish music exec that said "it is a privilege to be able to play a CD in anything but a CD player". What at least the music industry would like is that you buy the same music again and again for all the different devices you own, or should I say "own".
And for what exactly is DRM needed in this case? You have basic encryption on file in windows at the moment, requiring a password (logon). If that is not good enough you can use SecuSafe or some other 3rd party tool that encrypts the whole harddrive, like on the previous company I was at.
If you use Linux there is a whole slew of encryption algorithms to use along with crypto loopback device.
Yes, it still isn't "easy enough" to have all drives, including root encrypted as of this moment, but it is getting there in a while..
Which part is unclear? The kernel does not specify "GPLv2 or any later version", just GPLv2. So no, anyone cannot switch to GPLv3, only the original author.
Isn't this *exactly* what GPLv3 do for you?
You can refuse to do buissnes & associate with companies using DRM by *choosing* GPLv3.
If you do not care about DRM, you can choose GPLv2, like Linus (for the kernel).
I disagree. It might be new, but it is not innovative.
In dictionary:innovative adj 1: ahead of the times
Is it? No.
True, but the analogy when it comes to IE is more of a "mp3-player" that doesn't support other formats than WAV.
Unfortunatly the enduser doesn't see this lack, but the developers more so. A better browser would eventually translate to a better user experience (devs. need to go by lowest common denominator often, which is IE).
I have read through a lot of comments, but it seems noone has raised one issue:
What if a company make a GPL program that contains DRM, only to then have a signature of the binary someplace that confirms it "authenic"?
That only Suse, Redhat, Mandriva etc. can get "approved" in their distribution.
Wouldn't this technicly be GPL still, under its current version, even if in practice you couldn't compile it and expect it to work?
At least this is my view on how GPL and DRM might clash.
And how many are there left when you have filttered out IE's ActiveX (exploits)?
I doubt there is even a significent amout that are directly related to Javascript.
I have to disagree with you on this one.
The vendor do not have to provide the drive FAT-formatted, in fact, the LaCie 300Gb drive I bought about half a year ago was preformatted with HFS+ (or what Mac native format is) and a leafleat with instructions if you wish to format it to NTFS in windows.
(I encrypted it and formatted it with reiserfs, but that is another story.)
It is new, it is called DRM.
I agree that this is a positive development, what I think many object to is that they "try to do something to clean a mess they helped make" and then charges a price for the solution.
MS-Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus etc. will likely all cost money.
Also to be seen is if it is just an effort to reach a goal or a process (like security is).
Question:
Why go pick a fight in the first place?
Anyways, TA seems like a 3y old dupe:
Transparent Aluminium
I assume they will not, since it seems Flock is just a differently skinned Firefox/Gecko-browser..
From their blog:
Monday, October 03, 2005
Chris Messina
Chris Messina
FactoryCity
17:14:09 Supah Cheap CSS Dropshadow Hack
So I came up with my very own stupid CSS hack to do dropshadows in Flock (and by reverse extension, Firefox). It's very much a hack and not one that I would generally recommend unless in very small quantities, but I like it because a) I invented it and b) it works for me(TM).So how [...]
I don't think "vote with your wallet" works in this case. If their revenues decrease they will just once more blame it on copyright infridgement, not on their practices.
Regarding DRM and such, you might have some success by buying and returning as a defective product, because if there is enough of that happening, it is bound to get to them sooner or later.
If you think you lost fair usage rights, that *AA have crappy stuff or practice price fixing, I think your opinion will have much better success being heard by writing a short column in NYT readers column (do they have?) or something similar.
Same with my desktop.. ;)
But at least it's good as a paperweight..
Knowing russia, you'll hear of it only after it is allreay there.
In this light..
EDS might be the one to get the blame, but despite this I think that if they get 60000 machines up and running in one week, it is quite impressive. Mind, w/o network upgrades (?).
Nice to think - I takes *one* person and one day to bring down 60000 computers, but it takes probably 200-300 persons and a week to get them back..
(feel like looking for a new job, one?)
Being a linux enthusiast and all..
/lib, or do an unsuccessfull attempt to switch from libc 5 to glibc (long ago), both cases ends in a less than fully functioning system.
This is no different from some admin writing an own update-script that (without checking) would just copy a new version of glibc to thousands of machines.. And the results could be very same.
Ever tried to rename
Testing is everything.
aka DriveMusic :)
And yes, it is a fond memory.