Your distinction is probably valid, but I don't think it's possible for someone to give you the songs that they have legally acquired if all you are getting is the iPod. If they bought the CD, you should be getting that too, otherwise they are giving you a copy, which you have pointed out is illegal. Right now they can't give you their legally purchased iTunes downloads because there is no way to transfer a song from one account to another. Similarly, if they gave you an iPod loaded with movies, they'd have to also give you the DVDs. Of course, I'm ignoring the whole CSS issue.
Wouldn't we expect the level of file sharing to go up, proportional to the growing internet population? If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure. Whether it's the lawsuits or not is another question entirely.
Anyone who thinks this will stop the entertainment companies from using DRM is mistaken. What this will do is drive those companies away from Linux, and demonstrate to the courts (if/when any lawsuits are filed) that the Linux community has intentionally excluding itself from receiving protected content. I think that will make them less sympathetic, not more. This also makes Linux unusable for certain medical purposes which require use of DRM technologies to protect medical records.
The result is that Linux can now be used in fewer places than before. Not a good thing, in my mind.
The whole article is just flamebait. Any software you install can introduce risks, and there are already a host of things that pose similar threats. It's silly/stupid to think that DRM is unique in this way. Users should not be misled into believing that other applications (like word processors, web broswers, anti-virus programs, games, etc.) are inherently safe and don't have the same set of issues outlined by the article's author.
I know someone who just got back from China and he said that there was little piracy of Chinese created movies/music, and that the government frowns upon this while turning a blind eye to piracy of imported content. Can anyone else verify this?
Ok, there are now a bunch of responses railing on the "I need it free" post. WTF is going on? Am I on slashdot? Are pigs flying? Has common sense set in?
Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.
So you are actually trying to argue that users "need" to download a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder? That is a "want" of end users, not a need, just like I want $1 million. There is no rational justification other than self interest.
Somebody has to pay for good programming, and if you cut out all the ads, and cut out the cable revenues, then you will end up with nothing but the kind of programming that is on public access stations, which is fine if that is what you happen to like, but limiting and a bit of a waste for a medium that is as powerful as TV.
Myth: the information wants to be free. Status: BUSTED (if you want to keep seeing Mythbusters)
I don't mind watching a few ads if that will keep this show on the air.
I can't tell if you are arguing for a particular side, but let's not make the mistake of claiming that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. In the U.S., at least, we believe in equal rights. Just because the public (majority) wants free access to movies/games/music doesn't mean that we should trump creators' (minority) rights.
You assume that for most people FLAC or OGG files have some beniefit over Mp3s. They don't. In fact, they're worse because they don't work in as many places. Most people cannot hear the difference between a high bitrate MP3 (say, 160 or 192) and the original. What's the point in having an Ogg file if you can't hear the difference?
I tried, but it doesn't work because certain MCE functions are still running and won't go into suspend. I hear there's something called Wizmo that will force suspend but I haven't tested it yet.
A year ago, I built a media center PC using components off Microsoft's MCE hardware list and went with the components mentioned in various places as "most stable". I have an HD tuner and an analog tuner and I don't have any problems with my MCE. It's been reliable enough that I got rid of my Tivo. Of course, I'm not the typical user because I'm getting HD exclusively over the air (not via cable). I have my entire CD collection ripped to a second hard drive, I have over 2 gigs of family photos, I use the music subscription services, and my only complaint is that there's no automatic way to put it into suspend at night.
I suspect that most problems are caused by poor hardware choices and unnecessary messing with the software and OS. If you want something to work as reliably as a CE device, you can't use sketchy hardware or use applications that were not meant to work together.
You are perpetuating the myth that DVD drives can play HD-DVD discs. They can't, unless you're talking about a hybrid disc (HD-DVD on one side, DVD on the other). Both blu-ray and HD-DVD can do hybrid discs. The fact that the xbox has a DVD drive has no relationship to whether it will play HD-DVD or not (that will be a function of the individual HD-DVD titles, and whether they're hybrid or not).
Right, the copy protection has nothing to do with whether the xbox will play blu-ray. It has to do with the drive in the xbox. Of course, the same argument works in reverse: the playstation 3 won't play HD-DVD discs. Both groups have said that it is possible to make a hybrid disc (with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD on one side and regular DVD on the other) but that doesn't mean any given release will actually have a DVD layer so the idea that the Xbox will play all HD-DVDs is just a pipe dream anyway.
How your post got rated 5 informative is beyond me. Every point you make is wrong. The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement. Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get. Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals? If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
This is for subscription - there is no $1 per song charge. The model involves paying $12 per month for unlimited access. Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL, and others already offer subscription services under this model. Remember that the music companies pay the artists, so asking for half of the monthly fee does not seem unreasonable.
Here's why it won't fall under fair use - the law looks at how much of the original work is copied: "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Google is digitizing the whole book even though they are only displaying excerpts. It's going to be hard to argue that fair use allows them to copy the WHOLE book.
There was actually a lot of news coverage on how the ham operators stepped in when the normal communications infrastructure went down. According to the ARRL web site there were 1000 hams down there helping out.
Anyway, after watching the news I decided to get a ham license. I highly recommend the Now You're Talking Book (available from the arrl or amazon). After only a few days of studying I passed the test.
iBiquity is the company that created and licenses the HD Radio technology and they say that it is CD quality. I would not expect the broadcasters to be that interested in spending millions of dollars to roll out something that sounds equivalent to what they have now.
Slashdot Mirror
Your distinction is probably valid, but I don't think it's possible for someone to give you the songs that they have legally acquired if all you are getting is the iPod. If they bought the CD, you should be getting that too, otherwise they are giving you a copy, which you have pointed out is illegal. Right now they can't give you their legally purchased iTunes downloads because there is no way to transfer a song from one account to another. Similarly, if they gave you an iPod loaded with movies, they'd have to also give you the DVDs. Of course, I'm ignoring the whole CSS issue.
Wouldn't we expect the level of file sharing to go up, proportional to the growing internet population? If it has, in fact, stayed flat that would indicate something is creating downward pressure. Whether it's the lawsuits or not is another question entirely.
Anyone who thinks this will stop the entertainment companies from using DRM is mistaken. What this will do is drive those companies away from Linux, and demonstrate to the courts (if/when any lawsuits are filed) that the Linux community has intentionally excluding itself from receiving protected content. I think that will make them less sympathetic, not more. This also makes Linux unusable for certain medical purposes which require use of DRM technologies to protect medical records.
The result is that Linux can now be used in fewer places than before. Not a good thing, in my mind.
I think that's the right conclusion ;-)
The whole article is just flamebait. Any software you install can introduce risks, and there are already a host of things that pose similar threats. It's silly/stupid to think that DRM is unique in this way. Users should not be misled into believing that other applications (like word processors, web broswers, anti-virus programs, games, etc.) are inherently safe and don't have the same set of issues outlined by the article's author.
I know someone who just got back from China and he said that there was little piracy of Chinese created movies/music, and that the government frowns upon this while turning a blind eye to piracy of imported content. Can anyone else verify this?
Ok, there are now a bunch of responses railing on the "I need it free" post. WTF is going on? Am I on slashdot? Are pigs flying? Has common sense set in?
Sadly the networks cannot condone properly taking care of the needs of the end users. That wouldn't be fiscally responsible to their pockets.
So you are actually trying to argue that users "need" to download a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder? That is a "want" of end users, not a need, just like I want $1 million. There is no rational justification other than self interest.
Somebody has to pay for good programming, and if you cut out all the ads, and cut out the cable revenues, then you will end up with nothing but the kind of programming that is on public access stations, which is fine if that is what you happen to like, but limiting and a bit of a waste for a medium that is as powerful as TV.
Myth: the information wants to be free.
Status: BUSTED (if you want to keep seeing Mythbusters)
I don't mind watching a few ads if that will keep this show on the air.
Here's the problem: how do you tell the difference between the good (objective, accurate) articles and the bad (inaccurate, biased) ones?
I can't tell if you are arguing for a particular side, but let's not make the mistake of claiming that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. In the U.S., at least, we believe in equal rights. Just because the public (majority) wants free access to movies/games/music doesn't mean that we should trump creators' (minority) rights.
You assume that for most people FLAC or OGG files have some beniefit over Mp3s. They don't. In fact, they're worse because they don't work in as many places. Most people cannot hear the difference between a high bitrate MP3 (say, 160 or 192) and the original. What's the point in having an Ogg file if you can't hear the difference?
How do you know the majority of users are not pirates?
Wrong, that cannot be concluded from the ruling. If you read the opinion you'll see it is limited to software programs, not music or movies.
This is from the MPAA, not the RIAA.
I tried, but it doesn't work because certain MCE functions are still running and won't go into suspend. I hear there's something called Wizmo that will force suspend but I haven't tested it yet.
A year ago, I built a media center PC using components off Microsoft's MCE hardware list and went with the components mentioned in various places as "most stable". I have an HD tuner and an analog tuner and I don't have any problems with my MCE. It's been reliable enough that I got rid of my Tivo. Of course, I'm not the typical user because I'm getting HD exclusively over the air (not via cable). I have my entire CD collection ripped to a second hard drive, I have over 2 gigs of family photos, I use the music subscription services, and my only complaint is that there's no automatic way to put it into suspend at night.
;-)
I suspect that most problems are caused by poor hardware choices and unnecessary messing with the software and OS. If you want something to work as reliably as a CE device, you can't use sketchy hardware or use applications that were not meant to work together.
Just one man's opinion
You are perpetuating the myth that DVD drives can play HD-DVD discs. They can't, unless you're talking about a hybrid disc (HD-DVD on one side, DVD on the other). Both blu-ray and HD-DVD can do hybrid discs. The fact that the xbox has a DVD drive has no relationship to whether it will play HD-DVD or not (that will be a function of the individual HD-DVD titles, and whether they're hybrid or not).
Right, the copy protection has nothing to do with whether the xbox will play blu-ray. It has to do with the drive in the xbox. Of course, the same argument works in reverse: the playstation 3 won't play HD-DVD discs. Both groups have said that it is possible to make a hybrid disc (with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD on one side and regular DVD on the other) but that doesn't mean any given release will actually have a DVD layer so the idea that the Xbox will play all HD-DVDs is just a pipe dream anyway.
How your post got rated 5 informative is beyond me. Every point you make is wrong. The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement. Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get. Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals? If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
This is for subscription - there is no $1 per song charge. The model involves paying $12 per month for unlimited access. Yahoo, RealNetworks, AOL, and others already offer subscription services under this model. Remember that the music companies pay the artists, so asking for half of the monthly fee does not seem unreasonable.
Here's why it won't fall under fair use - the law looks at how much of the original work is copied: "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". Google is digitizing the whole book even though they are only displaying excerpts. It's going to be hard to argue that fair use allows them to copy the WHOLE book.
There was actually a lot of news coverage on how the ham operators stepped in when the normal communications infrastructure went down. According to the ARRL web site there were 1000 hams down there helping out.
Anyway, after watching the news I decided to get a ham license. I highly recommend the Now You're Talking Book (available from the arrl or amazon). After only a few days of studying I passed the test.
iBiquity is the company that created and licenses the HD Radio technology and they say that it is CD quality. I would not expect the broadcasters to be that interested in spending millions of dollars to roll out something that sounds equivalent to what they have now.
Remember that they were subject to one of the first music industry lawsuits relating to digital distribution? I found a summary here.