a) I don't expect to be tracked by items I purchase forever after purchase.
How are you being tracked? Your name is in the file. Do you also refuse to buy products with serial numbers or object to using a credit card to make purchases?
b) I don't want every song in my collection that might be shared (legally over say iTunes sharing) to contain my email addr;
iTunes sharing is streaming. If, on the off chance, you can actually see that info, put a password on your iTunes sharing! It's an existing feature that will prevent anyone you don't want to have access from getting access.
c) If I paid extra for DRM free music I should be able to do whatever I want with it within the same bounds as ripping a song from a CD. That is what I thought I was paying extra for.
Guess what, you can do whatever you want with it. How is having your name in the file preventing you from doing anything?
What's clear is that nothing is clear. Neither format is winning. The longer this keeps up, the more likely it is that the replacement format to DVD will be unprotected video downloads. This is what's happening with music, and the motion picture studios are repeating almost every mistake the majors made.
I'm friends with people who work for the companies that do this marking. No amount of clever arguments and analysis will trump the reality that these technologies are still used to successfully identify where content leaks.
The studios know where the camcorder copies come from - they are marked such that the leak can be traced back even after transfer to DVD or VCD. As far as I know, it's not in their business interest to cut previews so odds are they have reliable evidence the leaks are coming from Canada.
Actually, I find the opposite to be true. The less you know about it, the more likely are are to disparage the people who want deals as ignorant. The record labels are fundamentally VC funding for artists. You get a big up front and instead of giving a portion of stock to the VC, you commit a portion of your record sales. The VC expects a big return and so does the label. 1 out of 12 investments make it big and have to pay for the failures in both the VC and label world. But the most successful bands are usually the ones with major label support.
Yup, no rhetoric here. That explains why so few people show up to compete for major label contracts on American Idol and so few bands want that major label deal. Oh, wait...
Yet somehow, if you read the other posts in this thread, the "slashdot wisdom" is that artists *can* make a living by touring. So their stuff is garbage and people won't pay for CDs or downloads, yet somehow their stuff is not so bad that they can't make a living from concerts.
For some reason, the slashdot crowd suffers from cognitive dissonance on this particular topic.
What file sharing service are you using? Individual tracks are what's available on *most* services. This certainly isn't a factor.
The next time Big Champagne or their ilk publish file sharing data, you compare the files traded number to soundscan sales data. The last few times I've done this, the pirated files for a single track have been more than double the total number of purchased music, even when you include physical and digital, and you include albums and individual tracks.
Oh please, more people are listening to music than ever before, but there are fewer paying for it. If they can afford $300 ipods you think that they can't afford $.99 tracks? Do you know how many ipods sold last year? Do you seriously think that people don't have any music from the last few years on their ipods because it is all "garbage"?
It's not all piracy, of course, store closings and more entertainment options have a lot to do with it. But sales have been down for years now, well before any of the issues you list were a factor. Let's not kid ourselves.
Rational people (i.e. not the slashdot extremists) will probably see this as a good compromise, and you should too. Copyright owners have rights that go back to the constitution. A portion of the slashdot crowd has a misplaced sense of entitlement, but if you can do anything you want with the content and you maintain the content for your personal and non-commercial use (which is the justification of most people "demanding MP3") then you have no reason to complain about this. In the real world, compromises must be made. Copyright has a significant value and taking an extreme position is counter-productive and irrational.
Don't think the government will sit by and let industries built on IP get decimated because at the end of the day, what else can the US produce that can't be produced elsewhere? Accept a reasonable compromise or you'll find yourself paying a copyright tax on all your recordable media and bandwidth.
Do you believe that the constitution allows the rights of the many to trample the rights of the few? Do you believe that your rights to "have music" outweigh the music creator's rights to determine how their creation is sold and/or licensed? If you do, then your logic flies in the face of the constitution. If you don't like the way a download is sold, then BUY THE FRIGGEN CD! No one is holding a gun to your head.
Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution explicitly describes the rights of content creators to control their works. Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
I'm sorry, but it is your misplaced sense of entitlement that is unAmerican.
The fact that Apple is primarily a hardware company is the key. It is not in their interest to allow virtualization of the OS - ever. Jobs wants to lock the OS to Apple hardware because that is where he makes his money. If he wanted to preserve the quality of the experience on non-Apple hardware, he could institute a very rigorous certification program and only license the OS for use on approved systems.
It simply isn't in Apple's best interest. My prediction is that it will never happen, or at least not until Steve Jobs removes the DRM from Pixar movies on iTunes (sorry to be redundant).
From personal experience, I'd say that you can have a fantastic time with complete strangers if everyone is playing with the same objective and attitude, and communicating well enough that the team can coordinate its strategy. There's nothing more satisfying (in the game context, of course) than a coordinated and simultaneously executed diversion, attack, and defense to win the game.
Steve Jobs is the biggest share holder on the Disney board. Disney has a record label. Other indies such as Nettwork have expressed an interest in doing MP3. Why isn't Apple selling unprotected content for those companies?
iTunes was not even close to the first on-line store to sell legitimate music. Or even the first to offer their usage rules. Liquid Audio sold DRMed downloads before iTunes under the DRM rules iTunes later adopted. Apple is *already* being perceived as big evil company by certain communities, and it's partly because some people can see through the misinformation.
I'm asking whether someone knows (not guesses) whether there is any legal arcana that allows recalling or otherwise dumping appointed officials in the federal branch of the government. Say, a precedent in the past? This doesn't strike me as something generally well informed voters would know. If it is, mea culpa.
Does the public have any way to "recall" an Attorney General short of canning the president (which would probably be much harder)? I think I've hit my limit of tolerance for rights erosion.
Feel free to exercise your critical thinking skills. Look, I work in the music business and I know some of those people and you need to think about what you read before you parrot it. If you look at the board members, you'll notice that the independents have representation and the RIAA is not the music majors promoting some secret agenda to kill the music industry. And they are certainly not about creating scarcity. Maybe you should have looked at the list of labels that belong to the RIAA instead: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Come on, wake up and smell the coffee; this is about protecting copyright and anyone who tries to sell you some conspiracy theory is full of it. What will be interesting is the reaction from the artist community. If we don't hear anything from them, then we can guess how they feel.
About six months ago, I got my wife (who barely uses any minutes) a T-Mobile pre-paid phone. $100 gets you 1000 minutes and they don't expire for the whole year. Your challenge becomes remembering to recharge, a year later! Here's the link:
Do you believe god is omniscient? If so, he knew what Adam and Eve would do, yet he created them with their nature anyway. Had he had the choice to create them differently, but did not. Therefore, he is to blame, not adam or eve. You might reply with something about free will, but that's garbage. If you believe in heaven, then you believe in a perfect place, free of sin. Why didn't god create heaven on earth to start with, if he loved his people?
Look, I grew up in the church so I know all the arguments, but apply a little reason and you'll see the whole thing makes no sense. You can be a better person and happier as an atheist.
Actually, not true. Since the supreme court ruling, the p2ps have been settling. I don't think it is a mystery as to why - none of them actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to the inducement test. If they thought they could win, it would certainly be cheaper than $30 million to litigate.
You are right. Clearly the number of people still interested in getting a recording contract for large sums of money has diminished, as illustrated by the shrinking number of American Idol applicants and spin-off shows./sacrcasm
Slashdot Mirror
a) I don't expect to be tracked by items I purchase forever after purchase.
How are you being tracked? Your name is in the file. Do you also refuse to buy products with serial numbers or object to using a credit card to make purchases?
b) I don't want every song in my collection that might be shared (legally over say iTunes sharing) to contain my email addr;
iTunes sharing is streaming. If, on the off chance, you can actually see that info, put a password on your iTunes sharing! It's an existing feature that will prevent anyone you don't want to have access from getting access.
c) If I paid extra for DRM free music I should be able to do whatever I want with it within the same bounds as ripping a song from a CD. That is what I thought I was paying extra for.
Guess what, you can do whatever you want with it. How is having your name in the file preventing you from doing anything?
Why should I be outraged? Why do I care if my name is in a file that I purchased? Please explain.
What's clear is that nothing is clear. Neither format is winning. The longer this keeps up, the more likely it is that the replacement format to DVD will be unprotected video downloads. This is what's happening with music, and the motion picture studios are repeating almost every mistake the majors made.
I'm friends with people who work for the companies that do this marking. No amount of clever arguments and analysis will trump the reality that these technologies are still used to successfully identify where content leaks.
The studios know where the camcorder copies come from - they are marked such that the leak can be traced back even after transfer to DVD or VCD. As far as I know, it's not in their business interest to cut previews so odds are they have reliable evidence the leaks are coming from Canada.
Actually, I find the opposite to be true. The less you know about it, the more likely are are to disparage the people who want deals as ignorant. The record labels are fundamentally VC funding for artists. You get a big up front and instead of giving a portion of stock to the VC, you commit a portion of your record sales. The VC expects a big return and so does the label. 1 out of 12 investments make it big and have to pay for the failures in both the VC and label world. But the most successful bands are usually the ones with major label support.
Yup, no rhetoric here. That explains why so few people show up to compete for major label contracts on American Idol and so few bands want that major label deal. Oh, wait...
Yet somehow, if you read the other posts in this thread, the "slashdot wisdom" is that artists *can* make a living by touring. So their stuff is garbage and people won't pay for CDs or downloads, yet somehow their stuff is not so bad that they can't make a living from concerts.
For some reason, the slashdot crowd suffers from cognitive dissonance on this particular topic.
What file sharing service are you using? Individual tracks are what's available on *most* services. This certainly isn't a factor.
The next time Big Champagne or their ilk publish file sharing data, you compare the files traded number to soundscan sales data. The last few times I've done this, the pirated files for a single track have been more than double the total number of purchased music, even when you include physical and digital, and you include albums and individual tracks.
Oh please, more people are listening to music than ever before, but there are fewer paying for it. If they can afford $300 ipods you think that they can't afford $.99 tracks? Do you know how many ipods sold last year? Do you seriously think that people don't have any music from the last few years on their ipods because it is all "garbage"?
It's not all piracy, of course, store closings and more entertainment options have a lot to do with it. But sales have been down for years now, well before any of the issues you list were a factor. Let's not kid ourselves.
Don't forget no PVR functionality in the Apple box.
Rational people (i.e. not the slashdot extremists) will probably see this as a good compromise, and you should too. Copyright owners have rights that go back to the constitution. A portion of the slashdot crowd has a misplaced sense of entitlement, but if you can do anything you want with the content and you maintain the content for your personal and non-commercial use (which is the justification of most people "demanding MP3") then you have no reason to complain about this. In the real world, compromises must be made. Copyright has a significant value and taking an extreme position is counter-productive and irrational.
Don't think the government will sit by and let industries built on IP get decimated because at the end of the day, what else can the US produce that can't be produced elsewhere? Accept a reasonable compromise or you'll find yourself paying a copyright tax on all your recordable media and bandwidth.
You need to turn your wireless access point's security on!
I'm replying instead of modding.
Do you believe that the constitution allows the rights of the many to trample the rights of the few? Do you believe that your rights to "have music" outweigh the music creator's rights to determine how their creation is sold and/or licensed? If you do, then your logic flies in the face of the constitution. If you don't like the way a download is sold, then BUY THE FRIGGEN CD! No one is holding a gun to your head.
Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution explicitly describes the rights of content creators to control their works. Congress is supposed to promote the arts and sciences so that "authors and inventors [get] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
I'm sorry, but it is your misplaced sense of entitlement that is unAmerican.
The fact that Apple is primarily a hardware company is the key. It is not in their interest to allow virtualization of the OS - ever. Jobs wants to lock the OS to Apple hardware because that is where he makes his money. If he wanted to preserve the quality of the experience on non-Apple hardware, he could institute a very rigorous certification program and only license the OS for use on approved systems.
It simply isn't in Apple's best interest. My prediction is that it will never happen, or at least not until Steve Jobs removes the DRM from Pixar movies on iTunes (sorry to be redundant).
From personal experience, I'd say that you can have a fantastic time with complete strangers if everyone is playing with the same objective and attitude, and communicating well enough that the team can coordinate its strategy. There's nothing more satisfying (in the game context, of course) than a coordinated and simultaneously executed diversion, attack, and defense to win the game.
Steve Jobs is the biggest share holder on the Disney board. Disney has a record label. Other indies such as Nettwork have expressed an interest in doing MP3. Why isn't Apple selling unprotected content for those companies?
:-)
iTunes was not even close to the first on-line store to sell legitimate music. Or even the first to offer their usage rules. Liquid Audio sold DRMed downloads before iTunes under the DRM rules iTunes later adopted. Apple is *already* being perceived as big evil company by certain communities, and it's partly because some people can see through the misinformation.
But I still like my MacBookPro.
I'm asking whether someone knows (not guesses) whether there is any legal arcana that allows recalling or otherwise dumping appointed officials in the federal branch of the government. Say, a precedent in the past? This doesn't strike me as something generally well informed voters would know. If it is, mea culpa.
Does the public have any way to "recall" an Attorney General short of canning the president (which would probably be much harder)? I think I've hit my limit of tolerance for rights erosion.
Feel free to exercise your critical thinking skills. Look, I work in the music business and I know some of those people and you need to think about what you read before you parrot it. If you look at the board members, you'll notice that the independents have representation and the RIAA is not the music majors promoting some secret agenda to kill the music industry. And they are certainly not about creating scarcity. Maybe you should have looked at the list of labels that belong to the RIAA instead: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Come on, wake up and smell the coffee; this is about protecting copyright and anyone who tries to sell you some conspiracy theory is full of it. What will be interesting is the reaction from the artist community. If we don't hear anything from them, then we can guess how they feel.
About six months ago, I got my wife (who barely uses any minutes) a T-Mobile pre-paid phone. $100 gets you 1000 minutes and they don't expire for the whole year. Your challenge becomes remembering to recharge, a year later! Here's the link:
l ancategory=4
http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/default.aspx?p
Do you believe god is omniscient? If so, he knew what Adam and Eve would do, yet he created them with their nature anyway. Had he had the choice to create them differently, but did not. Therefore, he is to blame, not adam or eve. You might reply with something about free will, but that's garbage. If you believe in heaven, then you believe in a perfect place, free of sin. Why didn't god create heaven on earth to start with, if he loved his people?
Look, I grew up in the church so I know all the arguments, but apply a little reason and you'll see the whole thing makes no sense. You can be a better person and happier as an atheist.
He's now living/working in the US.
Actually, not true. Since the supreme court ruling, the p2ps have been settling. I don't think it is a mystery as to why - none of them actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to the inducement test. If they thought they could win, it would certainly be cheaper than $30 million to litigate.
You are right. Clearly the number of people still interested in getting a recording contract for large sums of money has diminished, as illustrated by the shrinking number of American Idol applicants and spin-off shows. /sacrcasm