One of us misunderstood the GP. My understanding is that he's asking why can't Napster use their own DRM and license it to all the device manufacturers they want? And if they want it to play on an iPod too, they need to write the software to make it work -they don't have to use Fairplay, there's room on the drive for 3rd party code.
Apple has established a monopoly on the online music market just as surely as Microsoft has on the OS market.
Not even close. WMA still has significant traction and marketshare, not to mention some big backers. Apple still having their current marketshare 5 years from now is not assured by any means. There are many companies who are competing and reasonably believe they can cut into Apple's share of the market. And yes, if Apple were to open things up, this would very likely happen. Compare that with Windows. When's the last time you read an credible article about the next "Windows Killer". Does anyone believe one misstep is all it would take for MS to lose its monopoly?
IOW, Apple's "monopoly" is new and tenuous. MS's is neither.
No, its OK as long as you publicly blame them for your failure. That always motivates the other company to do their best to make sure your business succeeds. I'm sure Gates is on the phone right now apologizing for Napsters poor performance and promising to step up support.
isn't paging out part of the VM to a hot swappable device just dope-assed?
Yes, but I don't think they're using it as "generic" VM space. I think, based on the language, this is stuff that could be re-read from the HD if needed, like chunks of the application code.
Not to mention that most USB keys aren't going USB 2.0 speeds. AFAIK all the ones I have are USB 1. And how does latency compare on the two systems (USB vs. hard drive)?
Nobody. Since these players do play normal DVDs too, I'm guessing most will wait for the price to come down. Then, when its time to replace the old DVD player that died, they'll maybe buy a BD or HD DVD player that will still play their old DVDs. Then when buying new movies, they might consider buying the "improved" format disks if there's not too much of a price premium over regular DVDs.
You are guaranteed to be able to make a copy to play around your house,
But said copy is not necessarily free of charge, restrictiions on use, or of the same quality as the original. From the article you linked'
Jordi Ribas, director of technical strategy for the Windows Digital Media Division, told me that while the feature is mandatory, the studios will have the option of charging for it.
IOW its mandatory that they allow you to buy another copy.
A common misconception on Slashdot is that Joe Consumer understands the issues with DRM and even more importantly, cares.
And a very simple way to make the point and make Joe Consumer care is simply to say to him, "Don't you hate having to sit through all that junk at the beginning of the DVD before you can watch the movie?" That usually gets them thinking. Then drop a hint about how things like the broadcast flag can prevent them from fast-forwarding through commercials, if they're allowed to even record a show to begin with. And Congress keeps passing more laws that give "the suits" more control over what we're allowed to do in our own living room.
That gets their attention. DRM isn't about previnting piracy, its about exerting control after the sale. You won't be able to do it even if it is legal.
For those of us who don't feel like wading a 100 page discussion transcript in legalese, can someone link to a concise summary of the changes being made?
We're talking RMS here. I believe 100 pages is considered a concise summary.
So as a cop I walk up to you and say "here's 100$ hit this guy for me" and you do it. Who actually created the crime?
Well, depending on circumstances, you could both be criminals. Both the "hit man" and the preson who hired them are generally considered guilty.
Of course the asumption in your post is that you're working in your official capacity at the time of the offer. Just trying to point out that "who's guilty" is often a matter of circumstance.
I'd prefer to see them go after the businesses that hire them.
That's what I've always thought. Just think if/. did a Spamvertisement of the day -sharing a reader's favorite spamvertisement, complete with 800 number (or other contact info), with all their/. friends who could then contact them for more information...
They make money if only 1 out of thousands of emails makes a sale, just think if only 1 out of thousands of return phone calls was going to make a sale.
As a non-UK resident, I agree. I just hope they're willing to open it up for non-residents who might be willing to pay for it. I know that's way down on the priority list though.
The one that gets me is the $20 DVD that takes 5 minutes of work between when I put it in the player and when I can actually start watching the movie. For the ones the kids watch a lot its, Rip. Strip. Burn. The origninal finds a safe place to live and the movie starts playing as soon as the DVD spins up -the way it should be.
Wasn't it a take-down notice sent to a website displaying one of these that got the whole thing started? It allegedly violated the city's copyright on the map IIRC.
Put DRM in the mix and that's all they'll have for another week -with regular posts summarizing maps of the past.
It might. If he reasonably felt Diebold had committed a felony or that a felony was about to take place, then he could get in just as much trouble for not reporting it.
And as I stated before, I believe (at least in some states) a lawyer is legally and ethically required to breach confidentiality if a crime is in progress or will be committed. If a suspect tells their lawyer, "Don't worry, I sent Johnny to kill the witness." they are required to report that, though generally not to a reporter. That's the part that could cause trouble IMO.
I read this pdf on jury nullification a while back. IIRC it covers things like why judges ignore the potential of jury nullification. It thought it was an interesting read at the time. It covers what jury nullification is, the basis for it, and why the legal system ignores it as much as possible.
I'm not entirely clear on the timing of events, but as I understand it attorney-client privilege goes out the window when the attorney obtains knowledge of a crime that's in the process of being committed, or will be committed. At that point, I thought they had an ethical obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities -a reporter generally not being considered the appropriate authorities.
Maybe they'll cover it on Law & Order in a few weeks and we'll all know how it works.
Just wondering if the way Apple's Mail program handles it would work for you. I have it set to not display images. When I view an email that contains images that are not being shown, a "Show Images" button appears at the top of the message. If I know the source of the email its simple enough to hit the button. OTOH if you get a lot of messages like that it might get irritating.
OTOH I miss all those images of naked teenagers who apparently can't wait to meet me.
An OS's security is directly related to its popularity.
No, an OS's security has nothing to do with popularity. Popularity only increases the number of attempts to breach said security. So a more secure OS may have more viruses if its more popular.
OTOH a more secure OS may have fewer viruses and be less popular. But what happens when a less secure OS is the most popular?
Slashdot Mirror
One of us misunderstood the GP. My understanding is that he's asking why can't Napster use their own DRM and license it to all the device manufacturers they want? And if they want it to play on an iPod too, they need to write the software to make it work -they don't have to use Fairplay, there's room on the drive for 3rd party code.
Apple has established a monopoly on the online music market just as surely as Microsoft has on the OS market.
Not even close. WMA still has significant traction and marketshare, not to mention some big backers. Apple still having their current marketshare 5 years from now is not assured by any means. There are many companies who are competing and reasonably believe they can cut into Apple's share of the market. And yes, if Apple were to open things up, this would very likely happen. Compare that with Windows. When's the last time you read an credible article about the next "Windows Killer". Does anyone believe one misstep is all it would take for MS to lose its monopoly?
IOW, Apple's "monopoly" is new and tenuous. MS's is neither.
No, its OK as long as you publicly blame them for your failure. That always motivates the other company to do their best to make sure your business succeeds. I'm sure Gates is on the phone right now apologizing for Napsters poor performance and promising to step up support.
At least on a teletype :)
ahhh, what fun to sit down and write code on one of those. Sure beat the punchcards!
Exactly. The DMCA is the only thing that allows them to restrict what would otherwise be perfectly legal.
That's pretty optimistic. I'm thinking the betas of SP 2 will be out around then.
It did make use of a C:\Users\ folder, however, which was rather nice.
How many years has DOS been dead, and drives are still identified by a letter. Just one of those things that makes me shake my head sadly.
isn't paging out part of the VM to a hot swappable device just dope-assed?
Yes, but I don't think they're using it as "generic" VM space. I think, based on the language, this is stuff that could be re-read from the HD if needed, like chunks of the application code.
Not to mention that most USB keys aren't going USB 2.0 speeds. AFAIK all the ones I have are USB 1. And how does latency compare on the two systems (USB vs. hard drive)?
Nobody. Since these players do play normal DVDs too, I'm guessing most will wait for the price to come down. Then, when its time to replace the old DVD player that died, they'll maybe buy a BD or HD DVD player that will still play their old DVDs. Then when buying new movies, they might consider buying the "improved" format disks if there's not too much of a price premium over regular DVDs.
At least that's my plan.
You are guaranteed to be able to make a copy to play around your house,
But said copy is not necessarily free of charge, restrictiions on use, or of the same quality as the original. From the article you linked'
Jordi Ribas, director of technical strategy for the Windows Digital Media Division, told me that while the feature is mandatory, the studios will have the option of charging for it.
IOW its mandatory that they allow you to buy another copy.
A common misconception on Slashdot is that Joe Consumer understands the issues with DRM and even more importantly, cares.
And a very simple way to make the point and make Joe Consumer care is simply to say to him, "Don't you hate having to sit through all that junk at the beginning of the DVD before you can watch the movie?" That usually gets them thinking. Then drop a hint about how things like the broadcast flag can prevent them from fast-forwarding through commercials, if they're allowed to even record a show to begin with. And Congress keeps passing more laws that give "the suits" more control over what we're allowed to do in our own living room.
That gets their attention. DRM isn't about previnting piracy, its about exerting control after the sale. You won't be able to do it even if it is legal.
For those of us who don't feel like wading a 100 page discussion transcript in legalese, can someone link to a concise summary of the changes being made?
We're talking RMS here. I believe 100 pages is considered a concise summary.
So as a cop I walk up to you and say "here's 100$ hit this guy for me" and you do it. Who actually created the crime?
Well, depending on circumstances, you could both be criminals. Both the "hit man" and the preson who hired them are generally considered guilty.
Of course the asumption in your post is that you're working in your official capacity at the time of the offer. Just trying to point out that "who's guilty" is often a matter of circumstance.
I'd prefer to see them go after the businesses that hire them.
/. did a Spamvertisement of the day -sharing a reader's favorite spamvertisement, complete with 800 number (or other contact info), with all their /. friends who could then contact them for more information...
That's what I've always thought. Just think if
They make money if only 1 out of thousands of emails makes a sale, just think if only 1 out of thousands of return phone calls was going to make a sale.
I don't think Apple is pro-DRM though, I think Apple had to, and would do away with it as soon as they could.
And lest we forget, it was Apple who used the slogan, "Rip. Mix. Burn."
PBS (the Public Broadcasting System in the US) does have some stuff available, but I do wish they would go a step further like the BBC.
As a non-UK resident, I agree. I just hope they're willing to open it up for non-residents who might be willing to pay for it. I know that's way down on the priority list though.
The one that gets me is the $20 DVD that takes 5 minutes of work between when I put it in the player and when I can actually start watching the movie. For the ones the kids watch a lot its, Rip. Strip. Burn. The origninal finds a safe place to live and the movie starts playing as soon as the DVD spins up -the way it should be.
No, don't!
Wasn't it a take-down notice sent to a website displaying one of these that got the whole thing started? It allegedly violated the city's copyright on the map IIRC.
Put DRM in the mix and that's all they'll have for another week -with regular posts summarizing maps of the past.
It might. If he reasonably felt Diebold had committed a felony or that a felony was about to take place, then he could get in just as much trouble for not reporting it.
And as I stated before, I believe (at least in some states) a lawyer is legally and ethically required to breach confidentiality if a crime is in progress or will be committed. If a suspect tells their lawyer, "Don't worry, I sent Johnny to kill the witness." they are required to report that, though generally not to a reporter. That's the part that could cause trouble IMO.
I read this pdf on jury nullification a while back. IIRC it covers things like why judges ignore the potential of jury nullification. It thought it was an interesting read at the time. It covers what jury nullification is, the basis for it, and why the legal system ignores it as much as possible.
I'm not entirely clear on the timing of events, but as I understand it attorney-client privilege goes out the window when the attorney obtains knowledge of a crime that's in the process of being committed, or will be committed. At that point, I thought they had an ethical obligation to report it to the appropriate authorities -a reporter generally not being considered the appropriate authorities.
Maybe they'll cover it on Law & Order in a few weeks and we'll all know how it works.
Just wondering if the way Apple's Mail program handles it would work for you. I have it set to not display images. When I view an email that contains images that are not being shown, a "Show Images" button appears at the top of the message. If I know the source of the email its simple enough to hit the button. OTOH if you get a lot of messages like that it might get irritating.
OTOH I miss all those images of naked teenagers who apparently can't wait to meet me.
An OS's security is directly related to its popularity.
No, an OS's security has nothing to do with popularity. Popularity only increases the number of attempts to breach said security. So a more secure OS may have more viruses if its more popular.
OTOH a more secure OS may have fewer viruses and be less popular. But what happens when a less secure OS is the most popular?