I guess they are following the trend and missing the obvious.
For economic reasons, there is a maximum amount that people are willing to spend on software licences.
If you crack down on people making copies, that does not mean that they all rush out and pay for a new copy. Some stick with what they have, some switch to Linux or ReactOS (eventually).
The copies served as free marketing. Some would get hooked and eventually buy a copy.
This is similar to music. Cassette/CD/MP3 copying did not kill buying music, it added to demand. Too much copy-protection, drm and controls will not increase demand, and may actually decrease demand.
Rather than trying to redirect a marketed negative term, I think focusing on copyright reform and freedom of the press would be more appealing. Using a name like "Free Press Party" could help create a positive image.
It should be ovbious to the consumer eventually that standard, transparent formats are good. And with opaque encrypted formats all are just as temporary as the intented player.
Underneath drm formats some standards are used. But this matters very little since those standards are hidden to the consumer or third parties.
The result is a non-standard format.
Only with a near monopoly can a non-standard survive.
Normally, if company 'A' sells proprietary music files, and company 'M' sells the the same music in another non-standard format, and company 'X' sells similar media, company 'X' will win.
Without DRM, there would still be a market to sell music online.
If RIAA, did not want to profit from this, there would be many that would.
The younger generation would buy/download online, not get CD's, whether or not the RIAA was selling.
Eventually the RIAA would sell online without DRM like everyone else.
DRM allows the RIAA to keep the old disposible media model (LP-8Track-Cassette-CD), where the consumers keep re-purchasing the same media. Consumers being able to have a "permanent" copy is scary to the RIAA. Copyright extensions and public domain are scary for the same reason. It would force new art/invention/innovation to get profit.
DRM, DMCA, and infinite copyright law are fighting agaist the "printing press like", which is free internet information exchange. No, "free information exchange" does not mean anarchy. There should be regulation that encourages innovation. But 120 year copyrights, and encrypting all information for sale is attempting to reverse free information exchange, and "kill the printing press".
How exactly does government support of monopolies of proprietary, encrypted information formats encourage innovation?
From the nature of DRM, you cannot compete directly, by creating compatible products, especially when DMCA type laws attempt to make such competition illegal.
Also, by the nature of current DRM, there is no expiration, so this leads to infinite copyrights, which ultimately lead to less inovation, and more disposible information/data/discoveries/art.
DRM, if mandated by the US Government violates the "limited time" nature of information monopolies allowed by the Constitution.
Terror suspects - You suspect them of having terror. They are afraid?
War on Terror - War agaist a feeling: terror/fear
War on Terrorism - War against a tactic: acts of terrorism
War on Terrorists - War against an unspecific group: those who would commit acts of terrorism
War against Al Qaida - War against a specific group that posed a threat
War in Iraq - ???
War against WMD that the US already destroyed years before?
War to remove Saddam, who has been removed?
War to promote a Muslim democracy? Democracy is evidently not imortant in Saudi Arabia.
War to create/attract would be terrorists.
War against Afganistan,Iraq,Korea,Iran - US goal to attack all bad countries and kill all the bad people to make world safer?
The current use of DRM is _not_ to protect the artists.
When the artists make pennies to the big publishing companies dollars, it should be obvious who DRM benefits.
The current use of DRM is control:
- control where and how the renter/"buyer" views/listens to the media.
- when the viewer/listener wants to listen/view the media in some other way, The media must be re-purchaced.
- this re-purchacing leads to a more constant money flow, without the need for new material.
- this combined with a near infinite copyright period helps to maximize profit from old works.
As with many things in society today, a very effective, but irresponsible way to make money is to make the product disposible. If the buyer is forced to throw away the DVD/Music/Computer/Phone every so often, more money is to be made.
The DMCA is unethical because it protects an unethical monopoly business protection model, DRM, which unethically oversteps copyright law, which was already about 100 longer than the "limited time" monopoly protection of the constitution. The constitution attempted to balance a limited monopoly(14 years) with freedom of the press.
Suppressing freedom of the press/publishing is unethical on a large scale (current 120+x years) is unethical, as it limits speech, progress, medicine, science and the arts.
If you are really looking for a multimedia experience, and audio/video quality is important, the first step is getting rid of all the fans.
All that is needed is a "blank multimedia" box for $200, that has DVI/HDMI and S/PDIF, with no moving parts except for the DVD drive.
Then you plop in the Open???Player (vlc based?) CD/DVD/USB and it updates the internal flash to create/update your player to the latest codecs. Or perhaps internal flash is not needed, and the root disc is USB flash.
"You [...] fix it yourself then."... "No. Please go find your support somewhere else."
Exactly, you have the option of fixing it your self or paying someone else to do so. Those are the key things that you are lacking when buying vendor lock in, closed software.
Linux grows without market pressure and without advertising. After all, it started with and still grows from the idea and potential of open source. Microsoft and Apple cannot copete with this, using a closed OS.
Once someone has really switched and understands how an open, free and flexible OS is better than a closed, DRM and virus ridden OS, it is hard to switch back.
Once governments/schools/businesses realize that they can use open source, often being higher quality and more secure, while saving millions/billions, it's hard to justify going back.
Sorry, I didn't read TFA, as the Title was wrong. But how exactly does one convince a open source person to start paying for something that is less flexible?
There is really only one way to stop open source, and that is to make it illegal (outlaw open source, or mandate DRM). But that cannot happen world wide, and would be hard to do without causing revolt and giving more free societies an advantage.
In the end, it is hard to directly compete with open source. It is better to try to stay ahead of the open source curve and add value to existing open source.
If you want to benefit from a useful invention or work of art, encrypting it with DRM adds no extra value and instead decreases the usefullness of the work.
How do you profit in a better world with more information freedom?
1. Create information/art as works for hire. Software/music/goverment company pays you to complete the work. The motive comes from the companies desire for the work, not from greed of profit. open source content works well here.
2. Existing copyright law already allows monopoly protection on a work for a near infinite amount of time. This existing law is more than sufficient.
- sell your music on your website at reasonable prices. People will not waste time digging for an hour finding some copy online, if one can just buy the song for a dollar.
- report other sites providing or selling your music, if you wish. That's what the laws are for.
I imagine a time not so far away when the "One laptop Per Child", or another $100 laptop becomes reallity. Of course it would run open source, because anything else would add a magnitude of cost.
Then the pressure is reversed. It's no longer "can linux captivate to the millions of ipod kids?", it would be "will the media file play on a billion kids laptops running open source?".
Perhaps you meant: "Copyright holders of some music still refuse music downloads".
The current copyright is 120 years. It is not likely now, and less likely in the future, that popular musicians would own the rights to their music. Also unlikely is that the original musicians are still a functioning band. In the "120 year copyright" long term, assuming that music would be written in a distributed fashion, the average musician who wrote the music 60 years ago is perhaps not likely alive.
Rather than first, trying to replace rpm/deb with some common package type, I think first, a unified repository format that works for everyone should be created. Then you can use deb's or rpm's, but the way packages are tracked would be the same. This would allow you to use either package file on the same system (assuming directory structures are standardized).
Then, come up with some conventions to use to make deb's and rpms portable. A tool that checks for portability (and possibly converts as well) would be useful here.
You could create a universal package format, but, if the rpms and debs are package portable, there is little difference (other than getting rid of extra libraries/binaries required to support and check all the package formats.)
Slashdot Mirror
Then perhaps the study shows that your job productivity will go up.
If that really is your job, try using a shell script using mv/move, then go home.
Anyone know Whyy Wiiiii is a siiillyy name?
When your DRM player dies, and noone supports your old DRM media format, your DRM files would be worth less than your 8-track collection.
I guess they are following the trend and missing the obvious.
For economic reasons, there is a maximum amount that people are willing to spend on software licences.
If you crack down on people making copies, that does not mean that they all rush out and pay for a new copy.
Some stick with what they have, some switch to Linux or ReactOS (eventually).
The copies served as free marketing. Some would get hooked and eventually buy a copy.
This is similar to music. Cassette/CD/MP3 copying did not kill buying music, it added to demand.
Too much copy-protection, drm and controls will not increase demand, and may actually decrease demand.
abolitionists advocating aboloshing ownership of humans.
proabably it's a bad comparison.
perhaps, the party name is what is bothering you.
Would you be less offended by a party by another name that advocated copyright reform?
The 120-infinity year plus copyright laws are bound to eventually cause revolt against such obvious press freedom supression.
Rather than trying to redirect a marketed negative term, I think focusing on copyright reform and freedom of the press would be more appealing. Using a name like "Free Press Party" could help create a positive image.
It should be ovbious to the consumer eventually that standard, transparent formats are good.
And with opaque encrypted formats all are just as temporary as the intented player.
Underneath drm formats some standards are used.
But this matters very little since those standards are hidden to the consumer or third parties.
The result is a non-standard format.
Only with a near monopoly can a non-standard survive.
Normally, if company 'A' sells proprietary music files, and company 'M' sells the the same music in another non-standard format, and company 'X' sells similar media, company 'X' will win.
Without DRM, there would still be a market to sell music online.
If RIAA, did not want to profit from this, there would be many that would.
The younger generation would buy/download online, not get CD's, whether or not the RIAA was selling.
Eventually the RIAA would sell online without DRM like everyone else.
DRM allows the RIAA to keep the old disposible media model (LP-8Track-Cassette-CD), where the consumers keep re-purchasing the same media. Consumers being able to have a "permanent" copy is scary to the RIAA. Copyright extensions and public domain are scary for the same reason. It would force new art/invention/innovation to get profit.
DRM, DMCA, and infinite copyright law are fighting agaist the "printing press like", which is free internet information exchange. No, "free information exchange" does not mean anarchy. There should be regulation that encourages innovation. But 120 year copyrights, and encrypting all information for sale is attempting to reverse free information exchange, and "kill the printing press".
How exactly does government support of monopolies of proprietary, encrypted information formats encourage innovation?
From the nature of DRM, you cannot compete directly, by creating compatible products, especially when DMCA type laws attempt to make such competition illegal.
Also, by the nature of current DRM, there is no expiration, so this leads to infinite copyrights, which ultimately lead to less inovation, and more disposible information/data/discoveries/art.
DRM, if mandated by the US Government violates the "limited time" nature of information monopolies allowed by the Constitution.
Terror suspects - You suspect them of having terror. They are afraid?
War on Terror - War agaist a feeling: terror/fear
War on Terrorism - War against a tactic: acts of terrorism
War on Terrorists - War against an unspecific group: those who would commit acts of terrorism
War against Al Qaida - War against a specific group that posed a threat
War in Iraq - ???
War against WMD that the US already destroyed years before?
War to remove Saddam, who has been removed?
War to promote a Muslim democracy? Democracy is evidently not imortant in Saudi Arabia.
War to create/attract would be terrorists.
War against Afganistan,Iraq,Korea,Iran - US goal to attack all bad countries and kill all the bad people to make world safer?
"... some DRM is good to protect the artists"
The current use of DRM is _not_ to protect the artists.
When the artists make pennies to the big publishing companies dollars, it should be obvious who DRM benefits.
The current use of DRM is control:
- control where and how the renter/"buyer" views/listens to the media.
- when the viewer/listener wants to listen/view the media in some other way, The media must be re-purchaced.
- this re-purchacing leads to a more constant money flow, without the need for new material.
- this combined with a near infinite copyright period helps to maximize profit from old works.
As with many things in society today, a very effective, but irresponsible way to make money is to make the product disposible. If the buyer is forced to throw away the DVD/Music/Computer/Phone every so often, more money is to be made.
AC is confusing ethics with legality.
The DMCA is unethical because it protects an unethical monopoly business protection model, DRM, which unethically oversteps copyright law, which was already about 100 longer than the "limited time" monopoly protection of the constitution. The constitution attempted to balance a limited monopoly(14 years) with freedom of the press.
Suppressing freedom of the press/publishing is unethical on a large scale (current 120+x years) is unethical, as it limits speech, progress, medicine, science and the arts.
20% - Windows Bug updates
20% - Media DRM
20% - Virus Scanner
10% - WGA verfification
10% - MS Paperclip
20% - Other
This post has been updated with new security enhancements. It is recommended that you reboot.
Yes - Reboot Now
No - Reboot Later
If you are really looking for a multimedia experience, and audio/video quality is important, the first step is getting rid of all the fans.
All that is needed is a "blank multimedia" box for $200, that has DVI/HDMI and S/PDIF, with no moving parts except for the DVD drive.
Then you plop in the Open???Player (vlc based?) CD/DVD/USB and it updates the internal flash to create/update your player to the latest codecs. Or perhaps internal flash is not needed, and the root disc is USB flash.
"You [...] fix it yourself then." ...
"No. Please go find your support somewhere else."
Exactly, you have the option of fixing it your self or paying someone else to do so. Those are the key things that you are lacking when buying vendor lock in, closed software.
Linux grows without market pressure and without advertising.
After all, it started with and still grows from the idea and potential of open source. Microsoft and Apple cannot copete with this, using a closed OS.
Once someone has really switched and understands how an open, free and flexible OS is better than a closed, DRM and virus ridden OS, it is hard to switch back.
Once governments/schools/businesses realize that they can use open source, often being higher quality and more secure, while saving millions/billions, it's hard to justify going back.
Sorry, I didn't read TFA, as the Title was wrong. But how exactly does one convince a open source person to start paying for something that is less flexible?
There is really only one way to stop open source, and that is to make it illegal (outlaw open source, or mandate DRM). But that cannot happen world wide, and would be hard to do without causing revolt and giving more free societies an advantage.
In the end, it is hard to directly compete with open source. It is better to try to stay ahead of the open source curve and add value to existing open source.
If you want to benefit from a useful invention or work of art, encrypting it with DRM adds no extra value and instead decreases the usefullness of the work.
How do you profit in a better world with more information freedom?
1. Create information/art as works for hire. Software/music/goverment company pays you to complete the work. The motive comes from the companies desire for the work, not from greed of profit. open source content works well here.
2. Existing copyright law already allows monopoly protection on a work for a near infinite amount of time. This existing law is more than sufficient.
- sell your music on your website at reasonable prices. People will not waste time digging for an hour finding some copy online, if one can just buy the song for a dollar.
- report other sites providing or selling your music, if you wish. That's what the laws are for.
I imagine a time not so far away when the "One laptop Per Child", or another $100 laptop becomes reallity.
Of course it would run open source, because anything else would add a magnitude of cost.
Then the pressure is reversed. It's no longer "can linux captivate to the millions of ipod kids?", it would be "will the media file play on a billion kids laptops running open source?".
Note that wmv9 now plays with ffmpeg/mplayer in FC5+livna.
So you can watch this video...
Where do they play.
Perhaps you meant: "Copyright holders of some music still refuse music downloads".
The current copyright is 120 years. It is not likely now, and less likely in the future, that popular musicians would own the rights to their music. Also unlikely is that the original musicians are still a functioning band. In the "120 year copyright" long term, assuming that music would be written in a distributed fashion, the average musician who wrote the music 60 years ago is perhaps not likely alive.
Rather than first, trying to replace rpm/deb with some common package type, I think first, a unified repository format that works for everyone should be created. Then you can use deb's or rpm's, but the way packages are tracked would be the same. This would allow you to use either package file on the same system (assuming directory structures are standardized).
Then, come up with some conventions to use to make deb's and rpms portable.
A tool that checks for portability (and possibly converts as well) would be useful here.
You could create a universal package format, but, if the rpms and debs are package portable, there is little difference (other than getting rid of extra libraries/binaries required to support and check all the package formats.)
blah blah blah
The new design used an external foot pedal that just plugged in as power.
The pictures are of the prototype. Isn't there a picture of a more recent model?
are you saying that you like apt-get in debian better than apt-get or yum in fedora?
.deb extension more than .rpm?
.rpm and .deb could be used on a single system (if file locations are also agreed upon).
.. .lpf ?
Or you just like the
The obvious long term solution is to aggree on a unified repository that rpm based systems and debian based systems moved to use.
Then
Finally, a non-vendor name would need to be agreed on.
in version "":
http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/changelog.html