unless you keep the same computer in working condition forever, you eventually lose all of the music you purchased and have to rebuy it for the next computer
Except that's not true if you've used iTunes. Simply burn your music to CDs. And that's the difference you claimed wasn't there.
At the same time, if your top priority is a DRM-free "policy" for your OS, learning Linux and forcing it onto your laptop [1], is going to be the best option
Well, that would make your computer free of DRM'd content, but not free of DRM or TPM. And you'd only be free of DRM'd content becuse iTunes doesn't work on Linux and you thus couldn't possibly buy anything from the iTunes Store. The same effect can be achieved by using Windows XP or Mac OS X and simply not buying anything from the store.
Windows XP
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
Mac OS X
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
If you buy a song from iTunes (the only provider of FairPlay format music), there is only ONE portable device platform that you can play it on, the iPod. The key here is that you don't have a choice where to play the music, it HAS to be via Apple software and hardware.
Okay, so your point is that Microsoft's DRM is less draconian because more manufacturers create devices that incorporate that particular DRM?
That's just weird logic. If my music is locked, I don't really care if there's a dozen or 50 players which can play it, at the end of the day it's still locked.
iPod DRM is draconian because you need an iPod to play it
Yeah, and the sky is red because I redefine red to be the new blue.
What you're describing doesn't make the DRM any more draconian. It just limits the manufacturers who produce players for your music. It's the same amount of locked-in whether your player is from Samsung or from, dunno, Archos or something.
The key difference between the two is that you can call up microsoft and say "I want people to play music with WMA DRM on my device."
AH! You mean Microsoft's DRM is less draconian if you're a device manufacturer! Okay, I give you that, but guess what, I'm not a device manufacturer, and even if I were, I wouldn't like Microsoft screwing me with the Zune, which seems pretty draconian to me.
As a consumer this limits your choice and reduces Apples motivation to innovate with the FairPlay format because there is no competition.
Of course there is competition. Apple competes with other manufacturers even if the music isn't compatible. The one with the limited choice is the sucker who went with PlaysForSure: His choice is limited to crappy players.
Furthermore, if Microsoft did the same thing with the WMA format to the extent that Apple has, they would be in court in short order.
Uhm... they're kinda... doing the same thing. Zune? Ever heard of it?
I didn't advocate a particular product, which is what you're doing
Uhm, your post doesn't exist in a vacuum. You replied to my post, which claimed that the iTunes DRM is the most lenient you can get. Obviously, I'm not saying that iTunes is perfect. I'm saying that it's better than every other DRM solution. To that, you replied "Apple's DRM is draconian." Now either your reply was utterly pointless (as it now seems to be), or you implied that Apple's solution is worse than Microsoft's - which you now claim you hadn't done.
Well, in that case, thanks for pointing out that iTunes' DRM is draconian. I disagree, but I respect your opinion. Since your post did not actually have anything to do with my original claim, continuing this discussion seems pointless. Please find somebody else to call "fanboy" and annoy with your absurd logic. Have a nice day.
So, what you're telling me is "blah blah blah, I can't hear you, my rules only apply to Apple, not to Microsoft!"
If an iPod user can't easily transfer his music to a Zune, Apple's DRM sucks.
If a PlaysForSure user can't transfer his music to a Zune at all, well, he's the idiot for wanting a Zune.
I can see how that works.
ANY other device you can think about
Any device except the iPod. Which just happens to be the most popular MP3 player which owns 70% of the market, has a gazillion different add-ons and is supported by a femtillion percent of all new automobiles.
Want to play those iTMS songs with , well, tough shit.
Want to play all those WMA songs with [iPod|Zune], well, tough shit. So your supposedly open PlaysForSure affords you the option of playing your songs on all the MP3 players which nobody wants. Great, if that works for you. Just don't tell me this is in any way better than Apple's DRM.
It doesn't take an audiophile to tell the difference between an AAC and the original.wav file
What does it take, then? Personally, I can't tell the difference between CD, 192 kbps MP3 and 128 kbsp AAC. I can tell the difference between CD and 128 kbps MP3, though. I haven't tried re-encoding, but it's absolutely clear that it won't be bad enough for most people to notice or, if they do notice, care.
Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.
WMA files won't play on your iPod
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies. Unprotected windows media files can easily be converted for the iPod. Why is it Apple's fault that the draconian MS DRM doesn't allow files to be converted for the iPod? I mean, your argument makes no sense at all. iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?
Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM. That's besides the point. I thought we were arguing which DRM is more draconian. So, basically, you have no facts supporting your point?
Apple's DRM is draconian because you need Apple's package to make use of the data you've bought: The AAC file you just bought from iTunes Music Store will only work on your iPod and in iTunes -- one of the few apps with more invasive installation than RealPlayer on Windowsl. When you decide the iPod is an overpriced fashion product, you can't switch to a more reasonable brand because Apple won't sell licenses for their DRM scheme to their competitors.
How is that different from the Zune or (ignoring the licensing) PlaysForSure? Using iTunes, you at least have the option of burning all your songs to CDs and moving on. If you bought into that supposedly open PlaysForSure thing and now want to buy a Zune, well, tough shit.
Oh, and by the way: "(...) overpriced fashion (...) more reasonable brand (...)" and all the double-standards: I think it's telling that you invoke "fanboyism."
that post is actually rather worrying becuase the TCPM is not advertsing itself to the OS anymore
How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.
If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
Is that why I can only use my iTunes music with my iPod?
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?
Apple's 'activation sceme' is much more restrictive then Microsoft's ever was.
Oh. So how come every time I changed something on my Dell, I got to call Microsoft and explain myself to them, while I had never any kind of problem like this with my Mac?
Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff. And it does: While Microsoft ads more DRM in each version of Windows, Apple can point to that and tell its users: What would you rather have, that mess or our relatively lenient DRM?
Geez, your post reads like you were just making it up as you went along, yet it got modded 5. Fascintaing.
While some Intel Macs had TPM hardware, it was never used, not even for making sure Mac OS X ran on a Mac. More recent Macs don't even include it anymore (much to the chagrin of some people who actually did make use of it)
Unlike Mac OS X, Linux does include drivers for TPM by default
If Apple's DRM is so draconian, how come it's the most lenient out there?
APPLE WAS SUING TO REMOVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS of a online person for publishing secrets about their products
Uhm, no. Somebody working for Apple was leaking Apple's trade secrets, and Apple wanted to find out who it was. This had nothing to do with bloggers (Mac rumor sites usually aren't even blogs), freedom of the press or first amendment rights. Don't be stupid.
They allow [to let people burn ordinary audio CDs from their iTunes] because it isn't a "perfect digital copy", it is more akin to taping an album onto a cassette.
That's wrong. Writing an AAC file to a CD is pretty much a prefect digital copy. It doesn't sound worse. However, if you then re-encode the CD to a non-lossless file, you've lost some information. You're free to encode to a lossless format, of course, but even if you don't, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the original file and the re-encoded non-DRM'd file. This is not at all similar to a cassette copy.
Really, there's no comparison to a cassette tape. These re-encoded songs sound way better than a cassette, even an original cassette. I mean, I know people who listen to music using youtube, for god's sake. If you're not an audiophile (and if you are, you're a) not Apple's target market and b) probably overestimating your ability to find flaws in recorded music), writing and re-encoding has only one problem: it's a hassle to do it.
Apple doens't use the TPM hardware. Unlike Mac OS X, Linux actually does include drivers for this hardware, as far as I know (Quote Linus: "A lot of commercial companies want to do some really bad things with DRM. So people dislike DRM and want to make it harder to do. But the silly thing is that DRM really is just technology, and like most everything else, the badness comes not from the technology, but from what you use it for. There are actually valid uses of the exact-same technology, even if it ends up being called something different ("privacy rights," "security," what-not)."
Apple uses DRM in the iTunes store, but that DRM is relatively lenient, compared to what Microsoft allows for.
you can't even issue the park command with the remote
That's what I thought at first, too, but turns out it's not true. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing the remote is useful for. If you steer the roomba using the remote, it will park automatically as soon as you approach the docking station.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who want to keep the same quality are audiophiles who never bought anything from the iTunes store anyway. And, uhm... CD-RW?
Which I did... where exactly?
Thank you for clearing that up
Except that's not true if you've used iTunes. Simply burn your music to CDs. And that's the difference you claimed wasn't there.
I never said that.
Yeah, and I'll trade my Golf against your Ferrari. They're both cars, they're the same fucking thing.
I agree.
Well, that would make your computer free of DRM'd content, but not free of DRM or TPM. And you'd only be free of DRM'd content becuse iTunes doesn't work on Linux and you thus couldn't possibly buy anything from the iTunes Store. The same effect can be achieved by using Windows XP or Mac OS X and simply not buying anything from the store.
As far as I know it boils down to this:
Windows XP
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
Mac OS X
DRM is implemented in individual applications such as iTunes. No fundamental support for DRM. You don't need to use DRM even if you use applications that potentially support DRM (again, such as iTunes).
Linux
Kernel-level support for TPM.
Vista
DRM is a fundamental part of Vista. You can't get around it.
Okay, so your point is that Microsoft's DRM is less draconian because more manufacturers create devices that incorporate that particular DRM?
That's just weird logic. If my music is locked, I don't really care if there's a dozen or 50 players which can play it, at the end of the day it's still locked.
Yeah, and the sky is red because I redefine red to be the new blue.
What you're describing doesn't make the DRM any more draconian. It just limits the manufacturers who produce players for your music. It's the same amount of locked-in whether your player is from Samsung or from, dunno, Archos or something.
AH! You mean Microsoft's DRM is less draconian if you're a device manufacturer! Okay, I give you that, but guess what, I'm not a device manufacturer, and even if I were, I wouldn't like Microsoft screwing me with the Zune, which seems pretty draconian to me.
Of course there is competition. Apple competes with other manufacturers even if the music isn't compatible. The one with the limited choice is the sucker who went with PlaysForSure: His choice is limited to crappy players.
Uhm... they're kinda... doing the same thing. Zune? Ever heard of it?
Uhm, your post doesn't exist in a vacuum. You replied to my post, which claimed that the iTunes DRM is the most lenient you can get. Obviously, I'm not saying that iTunes is perfect. I'm saying that it's better than every other DRM solution. To that, you replied "Apple's DRM is draconian." Now either your reply was utterly pointless (as it now seems to be), or you implied that Apple's solution is worse than Microsoft's - which you now claim you hadn't done.
Well, in that case, thanks for pointing out that iTunes' DRM is draconian. I disagree, but I respect your opinion. Since your post did not actually have anything to do with my original claim, continuing this discussion seems pointless. Please find somebody else to call "fanboy" and annoy with your absurd logic. Have a nice day.
So, what you're telling me is "blah blah blah, I can't hear you, my rules only apply to Apple, not to Microsoft!"
If an iPod user can't easily transfer his music to a Zune, Apple's DRM sucks.
If a PlaysForSure user can't transfer his music to a Zune at all, well, he's the idiot for wanting a Zune.
I can see how that works.
Any device except the iPod. Which just happens to be the most popular MP3 player which owns 70% of the market, has a gazillion different add-ons and is supported by a femtillion percent of all new automobiles.
Want to play all those WMA songs with [iPod|Zune], well, tough shit. So your supposedly open PlaysForSure affords you the option of playing your songs on all the MP3 players which nobody wants. Great, if that works for you. Just don't tell me this is in any way better than Apple's DRM.
What does it take, then? Personally, I can't tell the difference between CD, 192 kbps MP3 and 128 kbsp AAC. I can tell the difference between CD and 128 kbps MP3, though. I haven't tried re-encoding, but it's absolutely clear that it won't be bad enough for most people to notice or, if they do notice, care.
Probably because it didn't matter for Intel's pricing.
And similarly, the Zune doesn't play QuickTime movies. Unprotected windows media files can easily be converted for the iPod. Why is it Apple's fault that the draconian MS DRM doesn't allow files to be converted for the iPod? I mean, your argument makes no sense at all. iPod DRM is draconian because it doesn't support Microsoft's proprietary DRM? WTF?
Dude, Microsoft's DRM is just as closed as Apple's DRM. That's besides the point. I thought we were arguing which DRM is more draconian. So, basically, you have no facts supporting your point?
How is that different from the Zune or (ignoring the licensing) PlaysForSure? Using iTunes, you at least have the option of burning all your songs to CDs and moving on. If you bought into that supposedly open PlaysForSure thing and now want to buy a Zune, well, tough shit.
Oh, and by the way: "(...) overpriced fashion (...) more reasonable brand (...)" and all the double-standards: I think it's telling that you invoke "fanboyism."
How is that worrying? Nothing uses the module, so there's no need to even acknowledge its existence. Apple probably doesn't want third-party programs to use it because they would break on Macs without TPM.
That argument doesn't make sense unless it would show that iTunes is more draconian than Microsoft's DRM. So I can use music bought from a PlaysForSure/Zune store on my iPod? Oh, I can't. How is PlaysForSure less draconian than iTunes' DRM?
That won't be true anymore with Vista
Oh. So how come every time I changed something on my Dell, I got to call Microsoft and explain myself to them, while I had never any kind of problem like this with my Mac?
Actually, they are if it helps them sell their stuff. And it does: While Microsoft ads more DRM in each version of Windows, Apple can point to that and tell its users: What would you rather have, that mess or our relatively lenient DRM?
That's very much a competitive advantage.
Geez, your post reads like you were just making it up as you went along, yet it got modded 5. Fascintaing.
Uhm, no. Somebody working for Apple was leaking Apple's trade secrets, and Apple wanted to find out who it was. This had nothing to do with bloggers (Mac rumor sites usually aren't even blogs), freedom of the press or first amendment rights. Don't be stupid.
I don't think you understand just how much DRM there is in Vista. Read this and weep.
Apple simply can't compare with this.
Linux supports TPM natively. Mac OS X doesn't (and more recent Macs don't even include the hardware anymore).
That's wrong. Writing an AAC file to a CD is pretty much a prefect digital copy. It doesn't sound worse. However, if you then re-encode the CD to a non-lossless file, you've lost some information. You're free to encode to a lossless format, of course, but even if you don't, most people won't be able to tell the difference between the original file and the re-encoded non-DRM'd file. This is not at all similar to a cassette copy.
Really, there's no comparison to a cassette tape. These re-encoded songs sound way better than a cassette, even an original cassette. I mean, I know people who listen to music using youtube, for god's sake. If you're not an audiophile (and if you are, you're a) not Apple's target market and b) probably overestimating your ability to find flaws in recorded music), writing and re-encoding has only one problem: it's a hassle to do it.
This simply doesn't compare to what Microsoft is doing.
So what are you going to do? Write your own OS?
Pressing two buttons at the same time does not work on my remote. That's the first thing I've tried, of course. I don't have the Scheduler, though.
That's what I thought at first, too, but turns out it's not true. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing the remote is useful for. If you steer the roomba using the remote, it will park automatically as soon as you approach the docking station.