The Apple DRM scheme works by authenticating a PC or device once, then leaving it authenticated until formatted or de-authenticated.
So if you were to authorize iTunes on a PC, disconnect it from the internet, download a bunch of songs via iTunes on a different PC under the same account, and move the files over on a thumbdrive, they would work. If Apple shut down iTunes, then you would not be able to re-authenticate a computer later, but you could still play the files on computers that were authenticated in perpetuity.
The DRM in WMA requires a periodic check of DRM credentials. If it can't contact the DRM server for any reason, it revokes the license on the file.
So it's not so much that the Apple scheme doesn't require verification, it's that the Apple scheme doesn't require re-verification on a fixed timetable.
For most values of "MS Office Document", Office 97, 2000, 2002, and XP/2003 documents are all the same format.
Office 2007 is the first to introduce the new XML-based format.
Granted, Publisher and PowerPoint both have had some weird changes in format, but your bread & butter files (Access, Excel, and Word) took 10 years to change in any way that caused compatibility issues with a vanilla install.
So, in short, being on Office 2000 only hinders you from a file format standpoint if you're trying to share with someone using Office 2007 that can't find the giant "Save in 97-2003 Format" button in the Save menu.
It's not open source, put far cheaper than Exchange... Check out Kerio MailServer (Kerio.com).
It runs on OSX, Linux, Windows, or a pre-built CentOS VM, and has an Outlook MAPI plugin that includes offline caching, and so far is running great on my 25-user network. (I'm using the VM.)
Cost? $1k for 25 users. There is a rolling per-user support charge, but unlike the commercial version of Zimbra, they don't turn off your Outlook plugins if you opt to go support-free. It's also built on a lot of open components, so if you want to get in and tinker, you can to a point.
My problem is that I keep picking tapes based on performance and cost/MB, and end up with things like OnStream tapes...
I still say that OnStream drive was one of the best investments I ever made, it was fast, reliable, and worked without a hitch for 6 years... but when the drive died, it left me with now have a stack of tapes that are useless.
Hence why I went HDD... The interfaces are standard and I don't have to do the research to see if the tapes will be readable by next year's drives or not...
I got my present SysAdmin job through a series of networking... I was working as a repair tech for Staples, and had a regular customer that I kept in touch with through my following job, which was an on-site tech for small business at a local Mom-'n-Pop. When I left the Mom-'n-Pop, the regular customer hired me on as the sole person in IT. Now I'm the head of a 2-person, 3-building IT department.
My Father-In-Law has only his HS Diploma, and is a project team manager for a large (solvent) big-box electronics retailer.
The 3G is apparently being saddled for US customers with a 2-year contract with AT&T, the minimum plan of which (for the current iPhone, apparently the 3G is more) is $59.99/month. Until the contract is fulfilled, the phone isn't yours. (And since it's "locked" to the carrier, it never really is afterwards...)
This counter to the previous iPhone where you bought it outright and could use it as an overpowered Touch or Jailbreak it and use it with a different carrier.
That's for the iPhone. The iPhone 3G looks (based on the "requirements" and some of the other fine print) to REQUIRE a 2-year AT&T contract to take it out the door.
Everything I've read says that GSM and EV-DO are NOT cross-compatible, even though they're both 3G. I think you're reading more into that PCWorld article than is actually there....
Right on the Upload page there's a "Broadcast Options" section where you can mark a video public, or make it private and allow up to 25 friends to view the video.
Not exactly a flexible option, but it contradicts the article in a pretty major way.
The point is that Sony preventing people from copying their CD's (Which would include ripping to iTunes) is wrong, because if the DRM is effective then someone with an iPod would either have to buy just the iTunes version, or both the CD (And then presumably finding it copy protected) and the iTunes version (depending on if they want the physical CD.)
The retail establishment is not required to follow the chain of custody of a product covered by copyright all the way back to the original copyright holder. Actually, that chain may be hidden behind NDA's at points! The retailer is only required to have a reasonable expectation that their distributor is legitimate. If the distributor isn't, but there is no REASONABLE way to tell without an audit/investigation, then the retailer is most likely not liable, definitely would not be charged criminally, and might even have a fraud claim against the distributor.
You also forget, that in the case of a book or software, "Selling" is the job of the publisher. Everything else falls under distribution.
And First Sale doesn't apply to retail stores, as they are not the CONSUMER of the product. Once again, you're mistaking the distribution/retail chain with the publisher or the end consumer.
Now, I do agree with you that a retailer should do a bit of investigation just to make sure their supplier is legitimate. And yes, knowingly buying stolen or counterfeit products would open the retail establishment up to liabilities, but explicit licensing is not required by law, nor can it be required by the EULA on the software in the box. It could be required through distribution contracts between the publisher and the distribution chain, but then you're cutting many smaller stores (who either don't have the money to pay a lawyer to look over the distribution contracts, or are just paranoid over liability) and possibly some larger stores out of your retail chain, and that's just silly.
The retail store isn't copying, merely handling the distribution for the copier. A download service isn't necessarily making copies either, as the "copy" is the packaged.iso, just distributing said.iso to the end user.
So, Red Hat/Ubuntu/SuSe is the copier and bound by the GPL. The retail establishment is merely a distributor. So long as they don't have reasonable cause to believe the software is stolen or counterfeit, they have no liability for the internal license.
Slashdot Mirror
The Apple DRM scheme works by authenticating a PC or device once, then leaving it authenticated until formatted or de-authenticated.
So if you were to authorize iTunes on a PC, disconnect it from the internet, download a bunch of songs via iTunes on a different PC under the same account, and move the files over on a thumbdrive, they would work. If Apple shut down iTunes, then you would not be able to re-authenticate a computer later, but you could still play the files on computers that were authenticated in perpetuity.
The DRM in WMA requires a periodic check of DRM credentials. If it can't contact the DRM server for any reason, it revokes the license on the file.
So it's not so much that the Apple scheme doesn't require verification, it's that the Apple scheme doesn't require re-verification on a fixed timetable.
For most values of "MS Office Document", Office 97, 2000, 2002, and XP/2003 documents are all the same format.
Office 2007 is the first to introduce the new XML-based format.
Granted, Publisher and PowerPoint both have had some weird changes in format, but your bread & butter files (Access, Excel, and Word) took 10 years to change in any way that caused compatibility issues with a vanilla install.
So, in short, being on Office 2000 only hinders you from a file format standpoint if you're trying to share with someone using Office 2007 that can't find the giant "Save in 97-2003 Format" button in the Save menu.
So the other two people who posted this got +5 Funny, I get 0, Redundant?
Y'all moderators just hate Akron, huh?
Oh come on! Time Warner covers ALL of Akron!
It's not open source, put far cheaper than Exchange... Check out Kerio MailServer (Kerio.com).
It runs on OSX, Linux, Windows, or a pre-built CentOS VM, and has an Outlook MAPI plugin that includes offline caching, and so far is running great on my 25-user network. (I'm using the VM.)
Cost? $1k for 25 users. There is a rolling per-user support charge, but unlike the commercial version of Zimbra, they don't turn off your Outlook plugins if you opt to go support-free. It's also built on a lot of open components, so if you want to get in and tinker, you can to a point.
My problem is that I keep picking tapes based on performance and cost/MB, and end up with things like OnStream tapes...
I still say that OnStream drive was one of the best investments I ever made, it was fast, reliable, and worked without a hitch for 6 years... but when the drive died, it left me with now have a stack of tapes that are useless.
Hence why I went HDD... The interfaces are standard and I don't have to do the research to see if the tapes will be readable by next year's drives or not...
I got my present SysAdmin job through a series of networking... I was working as a repair tech for Staples, and had a regular customer that I kept in touch with through my following job, which was an on-site tech for small business at a local Mom-'n-Pop. When I left the Mom-'n-Pop, the regular customer hired me on as the sole person in IT. Now I'm the head of a 2-person, 3-building IT department.
My Father-In-Law has only his HS Diploma, and is a project team manager for a large (solvent) big-box electronics retailer.
"requiring developers to get Nintendo's approval before releasing games"
Sony still does this too. (See Working Designs and Goemon for the PS2.)
The question is whether (and yes, I know Viacom has nothing to do with Eddie) they would consider this to be as bad (or worse?) than this.
(Please support Eddie Izzard, buy his videos, don't just watch him on YouTube. </disclaimer/fanboi>)
The 3G is apparently being saddled for US customers with a 2-year contract with AT&T, the minimum plan of which (for the current iPhone, apparently the 3G is more) is $59.99/month. Until the contract is fulfilled, the phone isn't yours. (And since it's "locked" to the carrier, it never really is afterwards...)
This counter to the previous iPhone where you bought it outright and could use it as an overpowered Touch or Jailbreak it and use it with a different carrier.
Or if you've had bad service from AT&T in the past and feel giving them the money is pure loss.
Same thing. Thanks to order of operations, the parenthesis are redundant. (Exponent first, then Multiply/Divide, then Sum/Subtract.)
That's for the iPhone. The iPhone 3G looks (based on the "requirements" and some of the other fine print) to REQUIRE a 2-year AT&T contract to take it out the door.
Everything I've read says that GSM and EV-DO are NOT cross-compatible, even though they're both 3G. I think you're reading more into that PCWorld article than is actually there....
The tech specs list EDGE as a supported network, so yes, it is 3G/EDGE both.
In the Apple Store, it lists "2-Year AT&T Wireless Contract" as one of the system requirements, right next to iTunes.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MTE2NTQ
8GB Touch $299.
:P
8GB iPhone $199 + $59.99 * 24 = $1638.76
I think the touch is the better deal.
Right on the Upload page there's a "Broadcast Options" section where you can mark a video public, or make it private and allow up to 25 friends to view the video.
Not exactly a flexible option, but it contradicts the article in a pretty major way.
Awww, you beat me.
It could be worse... He could've used asdf.com as an example...
5th Amendment is the right to not incriminate oneself.
5th Article outlines the procedure for Amending the Constitution.
So both are relevant.
Read the post two up from here, or The Constitution...
The US Congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution. Just to put forward amendments to the State Legislatures.
I do believe you missed the point.
The point is that Sony preventing people from copying their CD's (Which would include ripping to iTunes) is wrong, because if the DRM is effective then someone with an iPod would either have to buy just the iTunes version, or both the CD (And then presumably finding it copy protected) and the iTunes version (depending on if they want the physical CD.)
Thank you! You managed to say that much more succinctly than I did.
The retail establishment is not required to follow the chain of custody of a product covered by copyright all the way back to the original copyright holder. Actually, that chain may be hidden behind NDA's at points! The retailer is only required to have a reasonable expectation that their distributor is legitimate. If the distributor isn't, but there is no REASONABLE way to tell without an audit/investigation, then the retailer is most likely not liable, definitely would not be charged criminally, and might even have a fraud claim against the distributor.
You also forget, that in the case of a book or software, "Selling" is the job of the publisher. Everything else falls under distribution.
And First Sale doesn't apply to retail stores, as they are not the CONSUMER of the product. Once again, you're mistaking the distribution/retail chain with the publisher or the end consumer.
Now, I do agree with you that a retailer should do a bit of investigation just to make sure their supplier is legitimate. And yes, knowingly buying stolen or counterfeit products would open the retail establishment up to liabilities, but explicit licensing is not required by law, nor can it be required by the EULA on the software in the box. It could be required through distribution contracts between the publisher and the distribution chain, but then you're cutting many smaller stores (who either don't have the money to pay a lawyer to look over the distribution contracts, or are just paranoid over liability) and possibly some larger stores out of your retail chain, and that's just silly.
Ah! But you missed the key point there:
.iso, just distributing said .iso to the end user.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies...
The retail store isn't copying, merely handling the distribution for the copier. A download service isn't necessarily making copies either, as the "copy" is the packaged
So, Red Hat/Ubuntu/SuSe is the copier and bound by the GPL. The retail establishment is merely a distributor. So long as they don't have reasonable cause to believe the software is stolen or counterfeit, they have no liability for the internal license.