As a relatively amateur user (non-31337), the most annoying thing about this "protection layer" is that it would make Napster's mp3's a new type of mp3. I really hate to see common extensions (.wav ,.avi , etc) being non-standardized into different sub-types that may or may not work with my applications. If you want to alter a standard file type in a significant way, at least have the decency to call it something different- that way, I won't have to wonder if a file I come across is an mp3 or an "mp3". I also find it interesting that I will have paid for a song, but won't own it "enough" to move it to a CD. Yay!
Slashdot Mirror
1.) Who defines "abusing the system," and how does that person judge whether a company honestly didn't know aabout the existence of prior art?
2.) This would give a small, obviously under-regulated office a very broad latitude to cripple technology companies for years at a time.
Forget Oracle- why doesn't Microsoft just expand Passport? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take care of this for us.
This sounds sorta like a comperable version for your files.
-----------
As a relatively amateur user (non-31337), the most annoying thing about this "protection layer" is that it would make Napster's mp3's a new type of mp3. I really hate to see common extensions (.wav , .avi , etc) being non-standardized into different sub-types that may or may not work with my applications. If you want to alter a standard file type in a significant way, at least have the decency to call it something different- that way, I won't have to wonder if a file I come across is an mp3 or an "mp3". I also find it interesting that I will have paid for a song, but won't own it "enough" to move it to a CD. Yay!