> If you have an Ipod, you can buy RIAA music > from exactly ONE online vendor. Apple
You can _directly_ buy _digital_copies_ of RIAA music from exactly one online vendor.
I can buy RIAA music for my iPod from innumerable vendors via other means. E.g.,
1. Log onto Amazon.com 2. Purchase CD 3. Two days later, for free (thanks Amazon Prime!), CD is delivered 4. Put CD in computer 5. Wait 10 minutes 6. DONE. All "RIAA music" on the CD is fully available on my iPod.
Honestly, if you're _really_ concerned about the whole DRM issue (and I agree it's a real issue), then purchase physical CDs for more or less the same cost as on ITMS, and own digital copies of the music in the non-DRMed format of your choice.
Am I the only one who noticed that Wordpress has not, as of this writing, actually been banned by Google?
You may have intended to write "Wordpress MAY BE Banned By Google" or "Wordpress TO BE Banned By Google?" But "Wordpress Banned By Google" as a headline is just plain wrong.
That's a "informative" post? Hmm. Let me give a try at some real information.
In reality, we subjected the ZVue player to our full battery of DivX Certified tests. There are several dozen test cases that use a large sample of representative DivX video content downloaded from the Internet. We make sure that every DivX Certified device meets minimum standards of quality (e.g., no freezes on high motion scenes, good ff and rew performance, and of course high-visual-quality DivX video playback) before we allow the product to be marketed using the DivX name. A typical product goes through several rounds of testing (with major and minor tweaks to hardware, firmware, etc. along the way) before it passes all the tests.:bez
I just want to address the (unfortunately) widespread wisdom that contributors were "screwed" when DivX was released until a closed source license. I work for DXN, and no one has brought up the explanation that we have published from the beginning: DivX is built from a different codebase than OpenDivX. Ergo, the license that governs OpenDivX is not the same as the one that governs DivX.
Now, that's not to say that there's no overlap between the two codebases, but the overlap that exists is code that was written _by_us_. And since we are the authors and copyright holders, we can license that code however we want, even if it has been previously released under an open license.
There were a handful of instances where code contributed by third parties was included in the DivX source code, but in each of these cases, we contacted the contributors directly, got permission to use their code, and compensated them for their work.
We've offered numerous times in public forums to deal directly with any contributors who feel they were "screwed" when we released DivX under a closed license. I'll make that offer again: anyone who contributed code and feels that their code was included in the DivX source is free to contact us to resolve the issue. So far, we haven't had any takers. A lot of people are complaining, but to our knowledge _everyone_ that wrote code that was included in the DivX source code has been individually contacted and compensated.
Slashdot Mirror
> If you have an Ipod, you can buy RIAA music
> from exactly ONE online vendor. Apple
You can _directly_ buy _digital_copies_ of RIAA music from exactly one online vendor.
I can buy RIAA music for my iPod from innumerable vendors via other means. E.g.,
1. Log onto Amazon.com
2. Purchase CD
3. Two days later, for free (thanks Amazon Prime!), CD is delivered
4. Put CD in computer
5. Wait 10 minutes
6. DONE. All "RIAA music" on the CD is fully available on my iPod.
Honestly, if you're _really_ concerned about the whole DRM issue (and I agree it's a real issue), then purchase physical CDs for more or less the same cost as on ITMS, and own digital copies of the music in the non-DRMed format of your choice.
Am I the only one who noticed that Wordpress has not, as of this writing, actually been banned by Google?
You may have intended to write "Wordpress MAY BE Banned By Google" or "Wordpress TO BE Banned By Google?" But "Wordpress Banned By Google" as a headline is just plain wrong.
That's a "informative" post? Hmm. Let me give a try at some real information.
:bez
In reality, we subjected the ZVue player to our full battery of DivX Certified tests. There are several dozen test cases that use a large sample of representative DivX video content downloaded from the Internet. We make sure that every DivX Certified device meets minimum standards of quality (e.g., no freezes on high motion scenes, good ff and rew performance, and of course high-visual-quality DivX video playback) before we allow the product to be marketed using the DivX name. A typical product goes through several rounds of testing (with major and minor tweaks to hardware, firmware, etc. along the way) before it passes all the tests.
Actually you can rent DivX movies online. DivX.com links to several companies that are offering DivX rentals. Check out the DivX Showcase page.
The rentals are offered using a system developed by DivXNetworks.
:bez
I just want to address the (unfortunately) widespread wisdom that contributors were "screwed" when DivX was released until a closed source license. I work for DXN, and no one has brought up the explanation that we have published from the beginning: DivX is built from a different codebase than OpenDivX. Ergo, the license that governs OpenDivX is not the same as the one that governs DivX.
Now, that's not to say that there's no overlap between the two codebases, but the overlap that exists is code that was written _by_us_. And since we are the authors and copyright holders, we can license that code however we want, even if it has been previously released under an open license.
There were a handful of instances where code contributed by third parties was included in the DivX source code, but in each of these cases, we contacted the contributors directly, got permission to use their code, and compensated them for their work.
We've offered numerous times in public forums to deal directly with any contributors who feel they were "screwed" when we released DivX under a closed license. I'll make that offer again: anyone who contributed code and feels that their code was included in the DivX source is free to contact us to resolve the issue. So far, we haven't had any takers. A lot of people are complaining, but to our knowledge _everyone_ that wrote code that was included in the DivX source code has been individually contacted and compensated.
Cheers.