But in the end, DRM always controls you, the customer, and what you can do with your own data. This is a fact. If it did not, cracking it wouldn't even be necessary.
Cracking it is only necessary to share to change the who. The additional restrictions are a function of the fact we aren't very good at DRM yet. But as a culture we are getting better quickly.
And they obviously can't. We've seen them try, but they've failed. It takes ridiculous amounts of money just to shut down a single website, and pirates just move on to the next
I don't see them failing. I see a thriving movie business, a thriving television business, a thriving e-book business, a thriving digital magazine business, and even the music business is starting to recover. As for the rest that's what fighting all crime is like but certain crimes are mostly defeated. Imagine what Napster would be like today if it hadn't been shut down.
And we've failed time and time again. It's much more simple to catch commercial copyright infringement. However, when you have normal people all over the world infringing upon copyright, that is much, much more difficult to prevent. No, it's just impossible. Especially if they start using encryption/VPNs.
No it isn't. It is being prevented now. Normal people have a threshold of quality vs. price vs. willingness to copy. They copy when the price of not copying is high and the hassle is low. So for example when good quality tape decks came around and you could make tapes almost as good as the original copying skyrocketed. Then the CD came out and cassette tapes were far worse than the original.
Again there is a thriving industry today that wouldn't exist if you were correct.
Sorry, but if any of the "minuses" happen to be a loss of privacy or collateral damage, I would much rather have no copyright enforcement. Freedom is absolutely more important to me than copyright, and I don't think there's anything you could say that would change my mind. Any defense of DRM will just fall on deaf ears.
That's fine. But is is an extreme position on the matter politically. Most people value content far more than minor changes to privacy and understand that law enforcement in many areas often involves collateral damage and collateral damage far worse than anything the DRM debate will ever produce. In real life people make choices between competing objectives and balance trade offs.
For Americans broadly, we want privacy, we want freedom and we want a thriving content creation industry which is customer supported. The resolution of the DRM debate will be a sacrifice of a little bit in each area. The music industry was not happy about moving to a model of selling singles and not albums but likes the fact that they are selling. I was on the internet back when everyone had to use a real name account tied to their employer. When there was far far less privacy and it was not a nightmare world there were plusses and minuses.
You are free to assert an extreme position but that's not meaningfully addressing the complexity of balancing competing interests which is how societies really do make policy. In the end your policy, absolutism on privacy and freedom in exchange for a return to the dismal content that exist when aristocrats funded vanity projects is not going to be acceptable.
I'd love the link. I would guess that most of the money is going to the record companies and the music stores that carry the sheet music. Physical music stores are expensive but do add to my quality of life. I don't have a huge problem with them getting a few hundred million.
Record companies we get to the whole artists vs. publisher issue. And for pop I come down on the side of the publishers. I think you just have to look at genres that have good artists and don't have an entire industry of support: Opera, Classical, Jazz, BlueGrass, Foreign... to see how much value the record companies add. Unpopular opinion on/. but I think they earn their cut. It takes a lot of effort to get people to buy stuff.
All DRM is restrictive. That is by design. If it wasn't, then you could freely do whatever you wanted with the data.
The goal of most content producers is to let you do what you want with your data. The more ways you have of using their content the more often you are going to be will to pay and the more you are going to willing to pay. At the same time they need to control who gets what content at what cost.
So I don't think it is accurate to say they want to control "what", they are interested in controlling "who" and what is just a mechanism.
And the pirates will just get rid of that, too. What a waste of time.
If the world is going to be dominated by rampant piracy like Asia then we are just going to live in a world where the only content that exists is stuff that for one reason or another isn't worth stealing. Right now publishers believe they can beat pirates and the media world has continued to function.
Legislation? You mean like SOPA and the DMCA?
Yes. And I also mean restrictions on the RIAA when they got out of control. Our government is too corporate friendly right now but they are the right place to resolve these issues.
Enforcing copyright is nigh impossible,
We are doing it now and we have been doing it for centuries. There are failures but the fact are that most content is bought from publishers not from pirates.
and worst of all, the damage the legislation does to innocents is often even worse than the damage DRM does.
That's just hyperbole. You have to look at places where there is much less enforcement and balance out plusses and minuses which IMHO comes down clearly on the side of plusses.
Lets take my daughter. I bought her about 2 of those books when she was young the more expensive one retailed at like $18. Since she's started playing an instrument I'm dropping over $50 / yr in sheet music. 20m people x $50/yr = $1b.
Good point about them not doing either. Again this is the sort of thing regulation could easily handle.
It is not so much a question of DRM as it is a question of a lack of agreed upon standards and mechanisms. Amazon for example does allow you to download again and again. Apple with applications does. With songs they've stopped using DRM so it has become a purchase.
And a generation ago if you didn't have a tape player I couldn't give you cassette tapes. If you don't have the technology, nor a transference system you can't get transference.
Actually a real solution would be government regulation of online digital content which requires transfer in the case the library is taken down and has something like an insurance company that has an additional copy. This is what was done with records we do care about like stock certificates or deeds for centuries.
I would bet you that most sheet music sales are to students learning to play instruments or good quality song books sold to parents for things like sing alongs with the kids.
Bad, restrictive DRM hurts everyone. What we need are good quality DRM that protects that publishers and the consumers balancing the two. Which is the sort of thing best handled by legislation.
Not really, we still are heavily focused on rewarding content creators based on copies sold. We don't have a situation where most content is created by the state, nor a model where most content is funded by rich people as vanity projects which are the two major alternatives.
Before computers we still faced a world where people would play movies without compensating studios, transfer movies to video, play music without licensing, pirate music onto "mix tapes", sell illegally recorded concept tapes, photocopy books... What we have is a situation where copyright is getting harder to enforce and we need a new collection of black letter law to deal with issues like the proper analogy to libraries.
First off companies are more friendly towards all open source than they were 15 years ago. But even more importantly, a company that wants to release its own software isn't bound by the GPL they have a copyright.
The problem for the Apple app store is that Apple is acting as distributor. Apple doesn't have a mechanism for providing source. Apple doesn't allow individuals without a developer's SDK to make changes to a program and then install. It creates a nebulous area. If Apple wanted to push it they could, but so far they haven't wanted to they have just asked the open source distributor to give them a less nebulous license.
Well yeah. At this poing Apple has both a software and a hardware advantage. The point was that if RIM were able to create a hardware advantage then it would still be possible....
Nobody complains that these platforms are not responsive.
Actually they do all the time. The complain about battery life which under an RTOS could be much longer since subsystems can boot during the runtime unlike traditional kernels where the hardware is generally expected to be fully booted before the OS even starts. Application authors complain about how difficult it is to get smooth graphics. End users complain about their phones freezing. Public safety people complain about distraction factors.
Yes there are lots of complaints.
it is plainly no longer necessary for the OS to be frugal about RAM and CPU cycles.
If that were true we'd be seeing iOS and Android at 30% or less utilization during common operations and we don't. The system is making tradeoffs. Further this is an either / or sort of situation. You either optimize for throughput or responsiveness both are optimizations.
I understand that, and I think the analogy is flawed. Less competition, especially for a mediocre product can be critical in terms of sales. A market 50x as large with 50x as much competition will on average be worse to enter into with a new product because by random chance alone you'll have competitors who have a substantially better product already present. Microsoft office basically sucks the oxygen out of the office suite for windows even though the windows market is massive. That's why OpenOffice's in the 1990s (then called StarOffice) did in fact thrive as a commercial offering for Linux and Sun where there was no comparable office suite while far better and far better funded suites for the Windows platform like Lotus SmartSuite were dying.
Cute answer. The importance of an RTOS for consumer electronics is responsiveness. Most OSes are optimized to do the most work on a given quantity of hardware. If however you optimize for responsiveness the system "feels" faster even though top of the line apps won't run. You reduce total productive capacity of the hardware but in exchange end user satisfaction skyrockets.
This used to be one of the core differences between Windows Desktop and Windows Server how the kernel was tweaked. And in the case of QNX it isn't a little tweaking but a bottom up design.
The problem with Linux desktop software was that the people drawn to the Linux desktop didn't want to buy applications. There were companies that made money on the Mac back when it has 2-5% marketshare.
Lots of enterprises are moving towards tablets. They are becoming standard in medicine. Salesforces and starting to use them because of instant on features. They are moving heavily towards retail.
And enterprise customers don't use the app store they use an enterprise phone management system to distribute apps.
. My starting assumption is that Microsoft knows they need to succeed in the smart phone game and that this would be a good thing to blow their cash hoard on unless they want to stay a PC software company. So I assume they are going to make some company succeed but may have not made up their minds which.
You are assuming wrong. The board discussed this something like about 18mo back. While they are willing to lose a little on this market they are not going to focus on this market as a core strategic direction at this time. They don't see earning the money back from this market, hardware is expensive driven by expensive parts, the carriers have enormous power and the software needs are light. Microsoft is going to continue to bring out new Windows mobile and have a division to try and keep a foot in the door if they can and of course if the situation were to change drastically...
Well for one thing the QNX kernel has capabilities in doing types of multitasking that might work better with distributed processing that the Linux kernel (which is ultimately designed around x86 type architectures) doesn't have. In theory there could be huge advantages for BB10. I don't believe that RIM has the technical excellence to pull this off at this point but QNX is a really interesting OS.
Actually it does demonstrate the problem with your logic that the law shouldn't apply when other people have broken the law.
These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.
No they aren't. These are people are being treated much more lightly than americans accused of assisting espionage and the possible criminal components of it. Issues involving intelligence operations are handled via. the congressional committees not the public at large. Everyone has been given plenty of due process, you just believe there is some sort of journalist right to always expose "official wrongdoing" even in the case of national security and the real law is more balanced.
Of course laws exist to protect abrogation of law. There would far less crime if the police just shot all suspects but the law prevents that even though it leads to greater abrogation of law.
Palestine is a terrible example. The US directly sells arms to assist in Israeli actions, and those actions have broad support in congress and moderate support in the population at large.
Slashdot Mirror
But in the end, DRM always controls you, the customer, and what you can do with your own data. This is a fact. If it did not, cracking it wouldn't even be necessary.
Cracking it is only necessary to share to change the who. The additional restrictions are a function of the fact we aren't very good at DRM yet. But as a culture we are getting better quickly.
And they obviously can't. We've seen them try, but they've failed. It takes ridiculous amounts of money just to shut down a single website, and pirates just move on to the next
I don't see them failing. I see a thriving movie business, a thriving television business, a thriving e-book business, a thriving digital magazine business, and even the music business is starting to recover. As for the rest that's what fighting all crime is like but certain crimes are mostly defeated. Imagine what Napster would be like today if it hadn't been shut down.
And we've failed time and time again. It's much more simple to catch commercial copyright infringement. However, when you have normal people all over the world infringing upon copyright, that is much, much more difficult to prevent. No, it's just impossible. Especially if they start using encryption/VPNs.
No it isn't. It is being prevented now. Normal people have a threshold of quality vs. price vs. willingness to copy. They copy when the price of not copying is high and the hassle is low. So for example when good quality tape decks came around and you could make tapes almost as good as the original copying skyrocketed. Then the CD came out and cassette tapes were far worse than the original.
Again there is a thriving industry today that wouldn't exist if you were correct.
Sorry, but if any of the "minuses" happen to be a loss of privacy or collateral damage, I would much rather have no copyright enforcement. Freedom is absolutely more important to me than copyright, and I don't think there's anything you could say that would change my mind. Any defense of DRM will just fall on deaf ears.
That's fine. But is is an extreme position on the matter politically. Most people value content far more than minor changes to privacy and understand that law enforcement in many areas often involves collateral damage and collateral damage far worse than anything the DRM debate will ever produce. In real life people make choices between competing objectives and balance trade offs.
For Americans broadly, we want privacy, we want freedom and we want a thriving content creation industry which is customer supported. The resolution of the DRM debate will be a sacrifice of a little bit in each area. The music industry was not happy about moving to a model of selling singles and not albums but likes the fact that they are selling. I was on the internet back when everyone had to use a real name account tied to their employer. When there was far far less privacy and it was not a nightmare world there were plusses and minuses.
You are free to assert an extreme position but that's not meaningfully addressing the complexity of balancing competing interests which is how societies really do make policy. In the end your policy, absolutism on privacy and freedom in exchange for a return to the dismal content that exist when aristocrats funded vanity projects is not going to be acceptable.
I'd love the link. I would guess that most of the money is going to the record companies and the music stores that carry the sheet music. Physical music stores are expensive but do add to my quality of life. I don't have a huge problem with them getting a few hundred million.
Record companies we get to the whole artists vs. publisher issue. And for pop I come down on the side of the publishers. I think you just have to look at genres that have good artists and don't have an entire industry of support: Opera, Classical, Jazz, BlueGrass, Foreign... to see how much value the record companies add. Unpopular opinion on /. but I think they earn their cut. It takes a lot of effort to get people to buy stuff.
All DRM is restrictive. That is by design. If it wasn't, then you could freely do whatever you wanted with the data.
The goal of most content producers is to let you do what you want with your data. The more ways you have of using their content the more often you are going to be will to pay and the more you are going to willing to pay. At the same time they need to control who gets what content at what cost.
So I don't think it is accurate to say they want to control "what", they are interested in controlling "who" and what is just a mechanism.
And the pirates will just get rid of that, too. What a waste of time.
If the world is going to be dominated by rampant piracy like Asia then we are just going to live in a world where the only content that exists is stuff that for one reason or another isn't worth stealing. Right now publishers believe they can beat pirates and the media world has continued to function.
Legislation? You mean like SOPA and the DMCA?
Yes. And I also mean restrictions on the RIAA when they got out of control. Our government is too corporate friendly right now but they are the right place to resolve these issues.
Enforcing copyright is nigh impossible,
We are doing it now and we have been doing it for centuries. There are failures but the fact are that most content is bought from publishers not from pirates.
and worst of all, the damage the legislation does to innocents is often even worse than the damage DRM does.
That's just hyperbole. You have to look at places where there is much less enforcement and balance out plusses and minuses which IMHO comes down clearly on the side of plusses.
Lets take my daughter. I bought her about 2 of those books when she was young the more expensive one retailed at like $18. Since she's started playing an instrument I'm dropping over $50 / yr in sheet music. 20m people x $50/yr = $1b.
Good point about them not doing either. Again this is the sort of thing regulation could easily handle.
It is not so much a question of DRM as it is a question of a lack of agreed upon standards and mechanisms. Amazon for example does allow you to download again and again. Apple with applications does. With songs they've stopped using DRM so it has become a purchase.
And a generation ago if you didn't have a tape player I couldn't give you cassette tapes. If you don't have the technology, nor a transference system you can't get transference.
Actually a real solution would be government regulation of online digital content which requires transfer in the case the library is taken down and has something like an insurance company that has an additional copy. This is what was done with records we do care about like stock certificates or deeds for centuries.
I would bet you that most sheet music sales are to students learning to play instruments or good quality song books sold to parents for things like sing alongs with the kids.
DRM hurts everyone, including paying customers.
Bad, restrictive DRM hurts everyone. What we need are good quality DRM that protects that publishers and the consumers balancing the two. Which is the sort of thing best handled by legislation.
Copyright has become obsolete
Not really, we still are heavily focused on rewarding content creators based on copies sold. We don't have a situation where most content is created by the state, nor a model where most content is funded by rich people as vanity projects which are the two major alternatives.
Before computers we still faced a world where people would play movies without compensating studios, transfer movies to video, play music without licensing, pirate music onto "mix tapes", sell illegally recorded concept tapes, photocopy books... What we have is a situation where copyright is getting harder to enforce and we need a new collection of black letter law to deal with issues like the proper analogy to libraries.
It is not use, it is SaaS a version you modified without releasing changes that is objectionable.
First off companies are more friendly towards all open source than they were 15 years ago. But even more importantly, a company that wants to release its own software isn't bound by the GPL they have a copyright.
The problem for the Apple app store is that Apple is acting as distributor. Apple doesn't have a mechanism for providing source. Apple doesn't allow individuals without a developer's SDK to make changes to a program and then install. It creates a nebulous area. If Apple wanted to push it they could, but so far they haven't wanted to they have just asked the open source distributor to give them a less nebulous license.
Well yeah. At this poing Apple has both a software and a hardware advantage. The point was that if RIM were able to create a hardware advantage then it would still be possible....
Nobody complains that these platforms are not responsive.
Actually they do all the time. The complain about battery life which under an RTOS could be much longer since subsystems can boot during the runtime unlike traditional kernels where the hardware is generally expected to be fully booted before the OS even starts. Application authors complain about how difficult it is to get smooth graphics. End users complain about their phones freezing. Public safety people complain about distraction factors.
Yes there are lots of complaints.
it is plainly no longer necessary for the OS to be frugal about RAM and CPU cycles.
If that were true we'd be seeing iOS and Android at 30% or less utilization during common operations and we don't. The system is making tradeoffs. Further this is an either / or sort of situation. You either optimize for throughput or responsiveness both are optimizations.
I understand that, and I think the analogy is flawed. Less competition, especially for a mediocre product can be critical in terms of sales. A market 50x as large with 50x as much competition will on average be worse to enter into with a new product because by random chance alone you'll have competitors who have a substantially better product already present. Microsoft office basically sucks the oxygen out of the office suite for windows even though the windows market is massive. That's why OpenOffice's in the 1990s (then called StarOffice) did in fact thrive as a commercial offering for Linux and Sun where there was no comparable office suite while far better and far better funded suites for the Windows platform like Lotus SmartSuite were dying.
Cute answer. The importance of an RTOS for consumer electronics is responsiveness. Most OSes are optimized to do the most work on a given quantity of hardware. If however you optimize for responsiveness the system "feels" faster even though top of the line apps won't run. You reduce total productive capacity of the hardware but in exchange end user satisfaction skyrockets.
This used to be one of the core differences between Windows Desktop and Windows Server how the kernel was tweaked. And in the case of QNX it isn't a little tweaking but a bottom up design.
The problem with Linux desktop software was that the people drawn to the Linux desktop didn't want to buy applications. There were companies that made money on the Mac back when it has 2-5% marketshare.
Lots of enterprises are moving towards tablets. They are becoming standard in medicine. Salesforces and starting to use them because of instant on features. They are moving heavily towards retail.
And enterprise customers don't use the app store they use an enterprise phone management system to distribute apps.
. My starting assumption is that Microsoft knows they need to succeed in the smart phone game and that this would be a good thing to blow their cash hoard on unless they want to stay a PC software company. So I assume they are going to make some company succeed but may have not made up their minds which.
You are assuming wrong. The board discussed this something like about 18mo back. While they are willing to lose a little on this market they are not going to focus on this market as a core strategic direction at this time. They don't see earning the money back from this market, hardware is expensive driven by expensive parts, the carriers have enormous power and the software needs are light. Microsoft is going to continue to bring out new Windows mobile and have a division to try and keep a foot in the door if they can and of course if the situation were to change drastically...
Well for one thing the QNX kernel has capabilities in doing types of multitasking that might work better with distributed processing that the Linux kernel (which is ultimately designed around x86 type architectures) doesn't have. In theory there could be huge advantages for BB10. I don't believe that RIM has the technical excellence to pull this off at this point but QNX is a really interesting OS.
Actually it does demonstrate the problem with your logic that the law shouldn't apply when other people have broken the law.
These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.
No they aren't. These are people are being treated much more lightly than americans accused of assisting espionage and the possible criminal components of it. Issues involving intelligence operations are handled via. the congressional committees not the public at large. Everyone has been given plenty of due process, you just believe there is some sort of journalist right to always expose "official wrongdoing" even in the case of national security and the real law is more balanced.
Of course laws exist to protect abrogation of law. There would far less crime if the police just shot all suspects but the law prevents that even though it leads to greater abrogation of law.
He was surrounded for 12 days and told to surrender to federal officers who had a valid court order.
Palestine is a terrible example. The US directly sells arms to assist in Israeli actions, and those actions have broad support in congress and moderate support in the population at large.