First, that claim was made by an x264 developer. Second, that comment in itself is misleading. VP8 developers didn't claim the bias affected visual quality. Here's the exact quote:
H.264 and MPEG-like encoders have slight advantages in reproducing some of their own typical artifacts, which helps their objective measurement numbers but not necessarily visual quality.
x264 developers need to take it easy and let their implementation speak on its merits rather than attempt to discredit VP8 at every opportunity.
It's not really a World Cup, it's a European-South American Cup with a couple countries from other continents invited.
"Invited?" Every World Cup tournament is preceded by World Cup qualifying matches in which every country meeting FIFA criteria (which is pretty much every country) participates. That's why it's called the World Cup.
Sure, giving them time to resolve the issue is reasonable. However, there has been no official commitment from them stating they intend to do so.
The software fix does not address antenna issues; some experts have chimed in stating it's an antenna design problem; and Apple's only official stance so far is - buy and use a bumper case, or just don't touch the phone on the lower left side.
Many I've exchanged several times trying to get a "good one" (for example, Kensington Expert Mouse with misaligned laser so that motion isn't properly detected
If you paid $200 and signed a 2-year service contract at $100+/month for your Kensington mouse, you should probably hold them to the same standard you would and should be holding Apple for the iPhone.
Besides, there are companies who stand by their products and some who don't. I had a Kensington mouse that simply fit my hand perfectly, so I kept it and kept using it daily at work. After nearly 4 or 5 years of use the side rubber pads started to wear and were slowly moving out from their original position. When I found out that that exact model of mouse was out of production, I wrote to their customer service including my model and serial number to direct me where to purchase the mouse I wanted, or let me know if they had a newer model.
The reply was something I didn't expect. They said not to worry, pointed me to the newer model, but also asked me to send them their address. Since my old mouse was still under warranty (really? Kensington mice have a 5 year warranty? Kidding, right?), they'd ship me the new one for free - just throw away the old one when new mouse arrives.
So, will you hold Apple to the same standard? What is Apple's "limited 1 year warranty" doing for people who legitimately have the antenna issue? And don't tell me there is no issue - I have personally seen it and reproduced it first-hand. Are they replacing the phones that have the issue with the ones that don't, like the one that you seem to have?
The operating system manages the hardware, and provides an interface between the hardware and applications. Everything else is an application (including most libraries, since they're just reusable parts of applications).
Yes, but kernels do a little more than that, including providing interfaces for those applications to implement things like process and memory management, user permissions/security, filesystems, etc.
In the case of consumer desktop MS Windows versions up until and including Windows XP, the operating system (and their supporting libraries/applications) did not have a capability to support a comprehensive user level security. Windows XP has some, but nowhere near enough, user security. So some imaginary security is implemented at a higher level. For example, most of the times, when a Windows XP user is "locked out" of certain features (such as viewing list of processes, running a command, opening a command prompt, access to certain hardware, etc.) it's done at the level of the Windows Explorer shell. Locked out of the C:\ drive from Windows Explorer? No problem, try any number of file managers that don't use the explorer shell. Cannot see the list of processes by right-clicking on the task bar? No problem - download any number of process managers.
So, an argument can be made that since the Explorer shell is performing certain tasks that should be performed at a lower OS level (the "security" being one of many), the Explorer is then part of the "OS." Since Internet Explorer used/uses the Explorer shell and Explorer needs the HTML rendering components, then the browser is indirectly part of the "Operating System."
Both IE and Firefox are pulling asshole arrogant moves by not making their HTML5 video playback call a library where codecs can be added.
And how do you propose this happen for Firefox? Have a video API where it can be loaded with OS and architecture specific proprietary codec binaries from 3rd parties? How does this help with Web standards?
If you want video integrated with the Web experience, define the common standard which everyone can implement with no strings attached. Short of that, that sort of API will only be re-inventing the plug-ins all over again but now they'd be specific to video.
Exactly HOW would the GPL have been better? There's still a fork of the last "good" version, which you can use if you like.
The company would have to release the source code (because it would have been a derivative of a GPL software), so their users would know exactly what was added. Then, they could make an educated decision whether to upgrade and continue using the product, or find an alternative/fork. Some would qualify this as "better."
Probably, but they still wouldn't be able to restrict you from using another search engine in your browser. Is a car manufacturer able to dictate what ads you are able to hear on your car radio?
That analogy doesn't make sense. When you go into Disneyworld you don't buy the piece of their property. But you do buy a phone and you physically possess it and own it. Displaying an ad on the phone you own is not the same as displaying an ad on someone else's property you are visiting.
Apple wants to give you warm fuzzies of making you feel at home as a consumer; but on the backend they are making sure they keep the leash on everything you can and cannot do on the device that you thought you owned. The leash doesn't extend past the "walled garden." In fact, with the iAds new terms, the leash got even shorter.
they slipped a DLL into a folder where Firefox would find it and go "Geez, thats an add-on!" No install necessary in FF, just put the extension in the right place and bingo!
That's the problem. Firefox should say - "hey user, I've never seen this extension file before (and you didn't download it via Firefox either); you didn't mean to install this stuff did you?" The default answer should be to skip installation of the extension. Problem solved. MS would be a lot more hesitant to try to "hack" around to circumvent this process.
if its a "plugin" like Shockwave or Flash, you should note that the ability to Disable/Enable ONLY is there because any user can and should have access to that plugin.
How so? If a user is able to install the plugin (systemwide for all users - assuming that's what you mean), that same user should be able to uninstall it in the same manner. If a plugin is installed via an escalated privilege, then Firefox should attempt the same escalation during the removal.
I use a password and possibly encryption on my computer. But no files I create are copyrighted until they are published. Until then, they are Trade Secrets of works in progress. Again, irrelevant to my "no DRM and copyright on the same work" statement.
No, it is relevant. There is no black and white distinction between the two. What if you send a novel you wrote to 20 of your friends with an encrypted e-mail, or password-protected zip file. Is that a trade secret, or a copyrighted work?
My car isn't copyrighted. It's patented, trademarked, but you don't copyright the formula for rubber in the tires.
Your car isn't copyrighted but it acts as a DRM system for "works" in it.
The closest to the point I made is "Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!" And again, it's an issue of whether there was ever a published work. If you download a copy of 1984 over encryption, that wouldn't count because the work has been widely published unencumbered for many years. If you are downloading a game off Steam that has never been available without DRM and there is no unlocked copy in the halls of the Library of Congress or such, then yes, that's DRM that's preventing the work from being "published" so it wouldn't be covered under copyright.
Several problems with these statements:
1. "Widely" published is as vague as it gets; it doesn't have any clear meaning with which you can differentiate what is copyrightable and what is not. The work should be copyrightable on its merits, not someone's arbitrary definition or understanding of "widely."
2. Distribution method should not determine whether the work is copyrightable. This is a problem because distributing your works via secure channels would automatically put otherwise copyrightable works into your trade secrets category. Such security (which is also "DRM") can be used to prevent tracking, MITM attacks, etc. and should not be used to determine the work's eligibility for copyright protection.
3. It doesn't make sense when copyright holder and distributor are different. "DRM" can be added by the distributor who is not the same entity as the copyright holder. In that case, per your argument, the copyright holder would be stripped of any copyright protection.
But from the fact that all but one are completely irrelevant to my comments leads me to believe you didn't get it at all.
Oh, I got it just fine.
Copyright was created to encourage publication and public distribution of works. If all works "published" are encumbered with license agreements turning them into private works distributed under NDA, then they weren't published, they are Trade Secrets. If they only ever distribute it with DRM, then it was never provided for public distribution, and thus can't enter the Public Domain now or ever, and thus should be in a legal "gray area" where they are provided no protections at all (as they are neither private, nor fully published), instead of the current system where they are given elevated protections (where they are seen as *both* private and fully published).
I just don't think it's as black and white as you make it sound like. And the idea, while noble in theory (and I'm sure you could list plenty of examples), would have many unintended consequences in reality.
Your issue then is with copyright, not with DRM.
My issue is with DRM being used to enforce copyright, which destroys the purpose of copyright. So my issue is with DRM and DRM alone for this discussion (I may or may not have issues with copyright, but they are not relevant to the discussion on DRM).
You are making it a copyright issue. DRM is just a tool that can be used in conjunction with copyrighted works. There is no clear separation between "good" DRM and "bad" DRM. Revoking copyright privileges based on arbitrary definition of "good" and "bad" (or "widely") is just as erroneous as the current laws that hold DRM as a special case where even discussing it is illegal. And taking a wide swipe at all DRM is basically arguing against copyright.
it would be reasonable to not allow copyright protections to content under DRM.
Aha, so that's your main point. This is a much larger issue; and pretty much any such regulation would have way too far-reaching consequences.
Did you password-protect the zip file you sent over e-mail? DRM! Did you use PGP/GPG to encrypt your e-mails? DRM! Are files on your computer username/password protected? DRM! Do you lock your car with an electronic remote? DRM! Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!
Pretty much anything that has an electronic "key" to open/enable copyrighted content would qualify. Your issue then is with copyright, not with DRM.
(See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)
It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.
DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.
Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.
Encrypting information and throwing away decryption keys would also cause information to be lost - let's outlaw deleting encryption keys and passwords.
Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.
Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is what I said was the problem.
That was the point in both of my previous posts. You've said nothing that disagrees with it.
OP (of this thread) said: "DRM is actually the most worrying problem."
Again, DRM is not a problem. The erosion of rights of free expression and speech is. The solution should not be to outlaw DRM, or place some legal restrictions on its implementations. This could have many unintended consequences. The solution should be to not restrict everyone's rights w/respect to DRM in the first place (i.e. cracks, discussion, research, etc.).
Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.
The real problem is when governments come in and single-handedly criminalize certain speech when such speech doesn't agree with corporate interests that got them elected in public office.
That is correct. I have used GPS on an Android phone on a plane at 40,000 feet in Airplane mode (although that doesn't even matter at that altitude). I got amazingly accurate location, heading, and speed from the GPS receiver and software.
[blah blah blah] extortion [blah blah] Far Cry case [blah blah blah] $1,500...
Did you even read any of these before posting about an unrelated case: article summary, article, linked complaint?
Let me help you out:
As for monetary damages, the movie's producers want those found to have pilfered the movie to pay actual or statutory damages and cover the costs that went into filing the suits.
So, they are asking for actual damages and court costs. So, if it cost them, say, $20,000 to file this lawsuit against 5,000 people, each person would have to pay $20 (or whatever actual damages of lost sale) + $4 court costs = $24. This is how normal lawsuits get filed and resolved. This is not unreasonable.
OK, now back to regular programming of how this is extortion, and they are evil.
1. Copying to clipboard: - selecting the whole URL prepends http:/// in front in the clipboard (expected behavior would be to only copy what is being selected) - it is impossible to copy the full URL without the protocol - selecting part of the URL only copies the selected part (which is expected), unless you select just the domain part, in which case it prepends http:/// again
2. Protocol display: Chrome will display https, file, ftp, and whatever protocols it does/will support in the future; just not http.
It would get really annoying really fast if all apps I use had their own quirks like that.
Frames constantly break websites, cause vulnerabilities, and have been a nuisance since the 90's.
The framesets used in 90s are pretty much gone now. However, iframes are used in more places than you realize. A lot of the small widget-looking areas on websites are a lot of the times iframes. Check out igoogle, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
First, that claim was made by an x264 developer. Second, that comment in itself is misleading. VP8 developers didn't claim the bias affected visual quality. Here's the exact quote:
H.264 and MPEG-like encoders have slight advantages in reproducing some of their own typical artifacts, which helps their objective measurement numbers but not necessarily visual quality.
x264 developers need to take it easy and let their implementation speak on its merits rather than attempt to discredit VP8 at every opportunity.
It's not really a World Cup, it's a European-South American Cup with a couple countries from other continents invited.
"Invited?" Every World Cup tournament is preceded by World Cup qualifying matches in which every country meeting FIFA criteria (which is pretty much every country) participates. That's why it's called the World Cup.
Sure, giving them time to resolve the issue is reasonable. However, there has been no official commitment from them stating they intend to do so.
The software fix does not address antenna issues; some experts have chimed in stating it's an antenna design problem; and Apple's only official stance so far is - buy and use a bumper case, or just don't touch the phone on the lower left side.
Many I've exchanged several times trying to get a "good one" (for example, Kensington Expert Mouse with misaligned laser so that motion isn't properly detected
If you paid $200 and signed a 2-year service contract at $100+/month for your Kensington mouse, you should probably hold them to the same standard you would and should be holding Apple for the iPhone.
Besides, there are companies who stand by their products and some who don't. I had a Kensington mouse that simply fit my hand perfectly, so I kept it and kept using it daily at work. After nearly 4 or 5 years of use the side rubber pads started to wear and were slowly moving out from their original position. When I found out that that exact model of mouse was out of production, I wrote to their customer service including my model and serial number to direct me where to purchase the mouse I wanted, or let me know if they had a newer model.
The reply was something I didn't expect. They said not to worry, pointed me to the newer model, but also asked me to send them their address. Since my old mouse was still under warranty (really? Kensington mice have a 5 year warranty? Kidding, right?), they'd ship me the new one for free - just throw away the old one when new mouse arrives.
So, will you hold Apple to the same standard? What is Apple's "limited 1 year warranty" doing for people who legitimately have the antenna issue? And don't tell me there is no issue - I have personally seen it and reproduced it first-hand. Are they replacing the phones that have the issue with the ones that don't, like the one that you seem to have?
That would be funny if it wasn't true. You can get it from Amazon too.
The operating system manages the hardware, and provides an interface between the hardware and applications. Everything else is an application (including most libraries, since they're just reusable parts of applications).
Yes, but kernels do a little more than that, including providing interfaces for those applications to implement things like process and memory management, user permissions/security, filesystems, etc.
In the case of consumer desktop MS Windows versions up until and including Windows XP, the operating system (and their supporting libraries/applications) did not have a capability to support a comprehensive user level security. Windows XP has some, but nowhere near enough, user security. So some imaginary security is implemented at a higher level. For example, most of the times, when a Windows XP user is "locked out" of certain features (such as viewing list of processes, running a command, opening a command prompt, access to certain hardware, etc.) it's done at the level of the Windows Explorer shell. Locked out of the C:\ drive from Windows Explorer? No problem, try any number of file managers that don't use the explorer shell. Cannot see the list of processes by right-clicking on the task bar? No problem - download any number of process managers.
So, an argument can be made that since the Explorer shell is performing certain tasks that should be performed at a lower OS level (the "security" being one of many), the Explorer is then part of the "OS." Since Internet Explorer used/uses the Explorer shell and Explorer needs the HTML rendering components, then the browser is indirectly part of the "Operating System."
Both IE and Firefox are pulling asshole arrogant moves by not making their HTML5 video playback call a library where codecs can be added.
And how do you propose this happen for Firefox? Have a video API where it can be loaded with OS and architecture specific proprietary codec binaries from 3rd parties? How does this help with Web standards?
If you want video integrated with the Web experience, define the common standard which everyone can implement with no strings attached. Short of that, that sort of API will only be re-inventing the plug-ins all over again but now they'd be specific to video.
Exactly HOW would the GPL have been better? There's still a fork of the last "good" version, which you can use if you like.
The company would have to release the source code (because it would have been a derivative of a GPL software), so their users would know exactly what was added. Then, they could make an educated decision whether to upgrade and continue using the product, or find an alternative/fork. Some would qualify this as "better."
Probably, but they still wouldn't be able to restrict you from using another search engine in your browser. Is a car manufacturer able to dictate what ads you are able to hear on your car radio?
That analogy doesn't make sense. When you go into Disneyworld you don't buy the piece of their property. But you do buy a phone and you physically possess it and own it. Displaying an ad on the phone you own is not the same as displaying an ad on someone else's property you are visiting.
Apple wants to give you warm fuzzies of making you feel at home as a consumer; but on the backend they are making sure they keep the leash on everything you can and cannot do on the device that you thought you owned. The leash doesn't extend past the "walled garden." In fact, with the iAds new terms, the leash got even shorter.
they slipped a DLL into a folder where Firefox would find it and go "Geez, thats an add-on!" No install necessary in FF, just put the extension in the right place and bingo!
That's the problem. Firefox should say - "hey user, I've never seen this extension file before (and you didn't download it via Firefox either); you didn't mean to install this stuff did you?" The default answer should be to skip installation of the extension. Problem solved. MS would be a lot more hesitant to try to "hack" around to circumvent this process.
if its a "plugin" like Shockwave or Flash, you should note that the ability to Disable/Enable ONLY is there because any user can and should have access to that plugin.
How so? If a user is able to install the plugin (systemwide for all users - assuming that's what you mean), that same user should be able to uninstall it in the same manner. If a plugin is installed via an escalated privilege, then Firefox should attempt the same escalation during the removal.
I use a password and possibly encryption on my computer. But no files I create are copyrighted until they are published. Until then, they are Trade Secrets of works in progress. Again, irrelevant to my "no DRM and copyright on the same work" statement.
No, it is relevant. There is no black and white distinction between the two. What if you send a novel you wrote to 20 of your friends with an encrypted e-mail, or password-protected zip file. Is that a trade secret, or a copyrighted work?
My car isn't copyrighted. It's patented, trademarked, but you don't copyright the formula for rubber in the tires.
Your car isn't copyrighted but it acts as a DRM system for "works" in it.
The closest to the point I made is "Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!" And again, it's an issue of whether there was ever a published work. If you download a copy of 1984 over encryption, that wouldn't count because the work has been widely published unencumbered for many years. If you are downloading a game off Steam that has never been available without DRM and there is no unlocked copy in the halls of the Library of Congress or such, then yes, that's DRM that's preventing the work from being "published" so it wouldn't be covered under copyright.
Several problems with these statements:
1. "Widely" published is as vague as it gets; it doesn't have any clear meaning with which you can differentiate what is copyrightable and what is not. The work should be copyrightable on its merits, not someone's arbitrary definition or understanding of "widely."
2. Distribution method should not determine whether the work is copyrightable. This is a problem because distributing your works via secure channels would automatically put otherwise copyrightable works into your trade secrets category. Such security (which is also "DRM") can be used to prevent tracking, MITM attacks, etc. and should not be used to determine the work's eligibility for copyright protection.
3. It doesn't make sense when copyright holder and distributor are different. "DRM" can be added by the distributor who is not the same entity as the copyright holder. In that case, per your argument, the copyright holder would be stripped of any copyright protection.
But from the fact that all but one are completely irrelevant to my comments leads me to believe you didn't get it at all.
Oh, I got it just fine.
Copyright was created to encourage publication and public distribution of works. If all works "published" are encumbered with license agreements turning them into private works distributed under NDA, then they weren't published, they are Trade Secrets. If they only ever distribute it with DRM, then it was never provided for public distribution, and thus can't enter the Public Domain now or ever, and thus should be in a legal "gray area" where they are provided no protections at all (as they are neither private, nor fully published), instead of the current system where they are given elevated protections (where they are seen as *both* private and fully published).
I just don't think it's as black and white as you make it sound like. And the idea, while noble in theory (and I'm sure you could list plenty of examples), would have many unintended consequences in reality.
Your issue then is with copyright, not with DRM.
My issue is with DRM being used to enforce copyright, which destroys the purpose of copyright. So my issue is with DRM and DRM alone for this discussion (I may or may not have issues with copyright, but they are not relevant to the discussion on DRM).
You are making it a copyright issue. DRM is just a tool that can be used in conjunction with copyrighted works. There is no clear separation between "good" DRM and "bad" DRM. Revoking copyright privileges based on arbitrary definition of "good" and "bad" (or "widely") is just as erroneous as the current laws that hold DRM as a special case where even discussing it is illegal. And taking a wide swipe at all DRM is basically arguing against copyright.
it would be reasonable to not allow copyright protections to content under DRM.
Aha, so that's your main point. This is a much larger issue; and pretty much any such regulation would have way too far-reaching consequences.
Did you password-protect the zip file you sent over e-mail? DRM!
Did you use PGP/GPG to encrypt your e-mails? DRM!
Are files on your computer username/password protected? DRM!
Do you lock your car with an electronic remote? DRM!
Did you use encryption (scp/sftp/etc.) to download copyrighted software? DRM!
Pretty much anything that has an electronic "key" to open/enable copyrighted content would qualify. Your issue then is with copyright, not with DRM.
DRM is a problem.
(See, you did not say why. So I also don’t, to refute your statement. But I can add arguments on top anyway, to make it an actual argument. Like:)
It's not a problem because it's your right to write whatever software (DRM or otherwise) you please - that is your right. Outlawing DRM would take away your freedom to write such software.
DRMed information is lost, when the server or decoding system is gone.
Writing with disappearing ink also causes information to be lost. Let's outlaw disappearing ink.
Encrypting information and throwing away decryption keys would also cause information to be lost - let's outlaw deleting encryption keys and passwords.
Criminalized circumventing DRM also is why it is a problem.
Then you didn't read my (oh, so short and to the point) post. Because that is what I said was the problem.
That was the point in both of my previous posts. You've said nothing that disagrees with it.
OP (of this thread) said: "DRM is actually the most worrying problem."
Again, DRM is not a problem. The erosion of rights of free expression and speech is. The solution should not be to outlaw DRM, or place some legal restrictions on its implementations. This could have many unintended consequences. The solution should be to not restrict everyone's rights w/respect to DRM in the first place (i.e. cracks, discussion, research, etc.).
Don't demean the word "rights." Everyone is free to write the software (DRM or otherwise) as they see fit - that is a right.
The real problem is when governments come in and single-handedly criminalize certain speech when such speech doesn't agree with corporate interests that got them elected in public office.
Of these two, DRM is actually the most worrying problem, IMO
DRM is not a problem; criminalizing talking about DRM is.
And do it in the name of "social networking" - e.g. their version of online book clubs.
That is correct. I have used GPS on an Android phone on a plane at 40,000 feet in Airplane mode (although that doesn't even matter at that altitude). I got amazingly accurate location, heading, and speed from the GPS receiver and software.
[blah blah blah] extortion [blah blah] Far Cry case [blah blah blah] $1,500 ...
Did you even read any of these before posting about an unrelated case: article summary, article, linked complaint?
Let me help you out:
As for monetary damages, the movie's producers want those found to have pilfered the movie to pay actual or statutory damages and cover the costs that went into filing the suits.
So, they are asking for actual damages and court costs. So, if it cost them, say, $20,000 to file this lawsuit against 5,000 people, each person would have to pay $20 (or whatever actual damages of lost sale) + $4 court costs = $24. This is how normal lawsuits get filed and resolved. This is not unreasonable.
OK, now back to regular programming of how this is extortion, and they are evil.
Wow, even they couldn't avoid the car analogy.
It should be supporting whatever protocols its creators deemed it needs to support.
It could support SPDY for all I care.
The point is not what protocols are supported. The point is if it selectively displays some, but not other(s), it's inconsistent.
It's inconsistent UI on 2 counts:
1. Copying to clipboard:
- selecting the whole URL prepends http:/// in front in the clipboard (expected behavior would be to only copy what is being selected)
- it is impossible to copy the full URL without the protocol
- selecting part of the URL only copies the selected part (which is expected), unless you select just the domain part, in which case it prepends http:/// again
2. Protocol display: Chrome will display https, file, ftp, and whatever protocols it does/will support in the future; just not http.
It would get really annoying really fast if all apps I use had their own quirks like that.
Microsoft has both of them beat with IE 6.
That's nothing - Netscape was already at 9.x in 2007!
Frames constantly break websites, cause vulnerabilities, and have been a nuisance since the 90's.
The framesets used in 90s are pretty much gone now. However, iframes are used in more places than you realize. A lot of the small widget-looking areas on websites are a lot of the times iframes. Check out igoogle, for example.