I read the thread higher up about heating air and driving a turbine, but then you get electricity in the middle of the day, how about this instead:
Boil water Steam rises Condense it higher up Save the water for its potential energy to generate the electricity during the evening when you want it.
In other words Light->Heat->Potential Energy Store -> Electricity later.
So when its sunny you make your potential energy and use it when you want the electricity.
Alcohol energy balance doesn't work
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
The energy to grow (Nitrogen fertilizers), ferment and distill alcohol is less than the energy you get out of it.
If you think about it, you want to replace the energy of tens of thousands of years of concentrated sunshine (in the form of plant growth), with 1 years plant growth (distilled to form alcohol). So how can the energy every replace what we have now even if you used cow manure and sunshine stills.
"it is a fundamental principle of illusionists to misdirection with flashes and loud noises so that you will miss where the slight of hand is actually going on."
I think its Baystar, I suspect there is a money trail from Microsoft to Baystar.
I think Baystar needed to explain telephone calls between themselves and Microsoft and that was why they felt the need to explain 'informal low level discussions'.
I think that, as Baystar realized this could end up as a securities fraud case they got cold feet and wanted to bail.
I suspect there is a money trail from Baystar to Royal Bank of Canada or from MS to Royal Bank of Canada. I suspect Royal Bank of Canada faced possible securities investigation and wanted to bail too.
I think that Baystar had no choice but to buy Royal Bank of Canada's stake or risk them going to the SEC.
I think that this is going to go tits up soon.
So whatever you do, don't look for any money trail between MS to Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada, instead look at these ridiculous claims.
Note: I have no evidence, I'm guessing, or rather betting.
"What the fuck? The artists don't own the music, the record companies own the music. Just like my employer owns the code I write on his time. The artist gets tens of thousands of dollars when he submits the song, and even more if the thing sells well once the company has recorded and distributed it."
Rubbish, the artists are loaned enough to make the master recording. It's like your company lending you the money to buy the computer they require you to use.
The costs of making the recording are then taken from the artists meagre royalties. Thats like your employee saying, "you've written this software and now you owe US $100,000".
Your employer then promotes this software, and sure they spend a lot of money promoting it, but then again, they get almost all of the reward if it sells, so they're really promoting their own product.
If the artists are lucky, they do well, most don't make back their costs. The record company on the other hand makes an overall profit from a much lower sale level, because almost all of the money comes back to them.
"As much as I hate it, the 50 cents that goes to the artist (which is much more than most estimates I've heard) isn't really a fleecing."
I might agree with you, if the cost of the staff/studio/engineer etc., wasn't taken back out of the musicians 50 cents. The cost of making the masters, studio time etc. is all taken from the musicians royalties not the record companies.
If the record doesn't sell, they can recoup that cost from other records the artists make.
"Think about it: who did the hard work? " The people making the music.
"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."
No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.
"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"
The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through. I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.
If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?
"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."
So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't. Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.
"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source',....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."
Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't. This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.
"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."
Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct. The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology. Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.
Parliament did a good job.
"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"
It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.
Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.
"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."
No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.
"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"
The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through. I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.
If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?
"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."
So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't. Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.
"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source',....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."
Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't. This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.
"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."
Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct. The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology. Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.
Parliament did a good job.
"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"
It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.
Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.
"Ease of use and brand recognition. iTunes' predecessors failed because they were obscure and difficult to use."
Isn't making unlimited CDs and running it on many computers part of "ease of use"?, i.e. the feature of Apples reduced DRM? So aren't you accepting (at least in part) that the turned down DRM contributed? Would removing the restrictions completely not make it even easier to use? Because then I could play it on my MP3 players etc. without a burn-rip stage.
"The fact that iTunes tracks have DRM makes it inconvenient for people to pirate them. It's easier to just buy them than it is to pirate them."
With iTunes DRM: Pirate want to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.
Without iTunes DRM: Pirate wants to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.
If iTunes was the only way to get the network seeded with Britney then your argument might be valid, but as long as there are many other *unprotected* ways to do it (including ripping from iTunes made CDs) then the DRM on iTunes does not affect that piracy.
In other words, you can lock the door, but the windows are wide open so the house is wide open.
(For local person to person piracy you would just write out an unprotected CD, so it doesn't help there either.)
"But apparently the difference in value is (1) insignificant, or (2) not at all universal, because iTunes has succeeded. DRM, therefore, is not an impediment to success in the marketplace, as the "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to think it was."
The DRM can be an "impediment to success", yet you can still succeed. In this case it stops Apple selling tracks to users like me, who have MP3 players that aren't iPod. The option of writing out a CDR and ripping it back into MP3 is so overly complicated and time consuming as to cut Apple out of that potential market. If the DRM wasn't there that wouldn't be a problem. Apple have their niche, but its still a tiny success hampered by their DRM.
The "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to be pointing to the basic flaw of DRM, sooner or later you have to decrypt the data and it only takes 1 person to seed a piracy network with an unprotected copy.
"On store--Buy Music--said they had a larger catalog"
Are you asserting that Apple succeeded because it had a bigger catalogue than the competition? Before iTunes launched, the competition had hundreds of thousands of tracks more than iTunes, because iTunes had zero - it hadn't launched yet! Yet none of those earlier download sites succeeded. The only novel thing iTunes brought to the market was considerably weakened DRM not more tracks than the competition.
"It's very difficult to find via Kazaa what you can get easily and quickly via iTunes."
My Kazaa reply was in response to your "DRM stops people copying music by making it more difficult" comment. It might be true that tracks are quicker to find on iTunes than Kazaa, but the DRM has nothing to do with it. The DRM on iTunes has no effect on the unprotected DRM experience on Kazaa.
"DRM reduces the perceived value of the music... Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has."
You've asserted that without making an argument as to why your assertion is true.
Without DRM I can play the iTunes tracks on my MP3 player, with DRM I can't, only iPod and CD players. So of course its worth more to me without the DRM than with.
"iTunes...would it be going any less strong if they had,...convinced the RIAA to go with non-DRM protected AAC files? Yes. Because they would not have the selection of music they have today. "
It wasn't the wide selection of records that caused iTunes to succeed, many other online services had bigger catalogues, it was the reduction in the DRM that was the big difference with the previous download stores.
"Furthermore, do you think the DRM they do have stops anybody who wants to from copying the music? Yes. Because it's easier, faster, and more convenient to just buy the damn thing."
The Kazaa copy has no DRM. If you lock the door, but leave the windows wide open, saying that nobody goes through the door therefore the door is working is true, but of no value. It may be FASTER & CHEAPER to buy the door key, rather than break the door down and go through the doors, but the windows are open!
"Of course it will. All you have to do is make it more convenient to buy the real thing than to pirate it. "
True, sort of. I think people perceive a value for an iTunes song. That value derives from it being legal, and high quality. As long as the price Apple charges is less than the perceived value of it, people are happy to pay.
DRM reduces the perceived value of the music, because it reduces flexibility and therefore the value of the music is less to the consumer, and the price it can support is less.
Re:Contents of the Letter (playfair.txt)
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 1
"This is like me going around handing out Uzi 9 millimeters to whoever wants one, and substantiating my actions by saying 'well this doesn't give the user any special facilities they didn't have before'
Possession of an unlicensed weapon & distributing unlicensed weapons is a crime, distributing tape recorders isn't. Your analogy does not hold up.
"PlayFair is dangerous - it is an assault on the security of DRM...By undermining this DRM it encourages record companies to sway towards enforcing more arcane DRM,not removing it."
Not so, the DRM could never work because you always have to decrypt the music to play it, so you always have to provide the key. DRM could never work, go ahead make it more restrictive, add dongles, widgets or Palladium none of it could ever work.
"What do people expect? That by cracking the DRM of the music services the record industry will just give up completely on DRM? "
Yes, it can never work, this shows them that it can never work. After a dozen more failed attempts to make this DRM stuff work, they will stop throwing money down the drain on it.
"You do not get your message across by breaking the law"
Playfair breaks no laws, Apple's EULA is not a law and never will be.
"PlayFair is counterproductive to reducing DRM restrictions. It makes it more difficult for bridge companies to work out issues with the recording companies, hampering the progress of online music."
Online music is doing just fine, *selling* online music was the failure until Apple turned down the DRM.
"The recording industry will simply take their ball home altogether."
Last 12 albums I've bought have been unprotect MP3 VBRs from the likes of Magnatune. Who cares what the DRM guys do, other companies will take their place! This is excellent for Apple & the Record companies because before people like me would never consider iTMS, but now we will. It does no extra piracy damage, because there was always a way to bypass the DRM in iTms anyway by ripping from CD.
"If you really have a problem with the terms of Apple's DRM, here is how to go about making your voice heard: 1. Consumer action. don't buy from iTMS. 2. Write to Apple/Your local newspaper/Your congressman with your views."
Or download playfair and continue to buy music. That way YOU get what YOU want, unprotected music and Apple & the record industry gets what it wants MONEY. A win win situation for all concerned. There's no law to change here, Playfair is LEGAL in India.
"Breaking the DRM will always make things worse for all involved, and will spoil the fun for those who at the moment DO enjoy the services of the iTMS and aren't impacted by the DRM, of which there are millions."
I think the Sig was the whole point of his post. (18 words in the Sig, only 13 in the post, the Sig WAS the message he's pushing).
He made a short comment simply repeating the stories angle, followed by a misleading political statement as a sig.
Do you think he got 5 points for restating the competition angle already mentioned in the original story? Probably not, Bush supporters mod him up to push the sig message.
From the story: "Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio. "
From his comment: "XM and Sirius ARE good for competition, that's why ClearChannel doesn't like them"
There's papers already written about Google's existing file system. It is 'append only', they build up large 40GB+ chunk files on Linux servers and flag stuff within the file as deleted, without actucally deleting it.
So they probably only compact a file when it becomes mostly deleted entries.
They're probably using the same system for GMail, so even if you delete stuff, its not really deleted until the file store its on it compacted.
Hence the terms of service.
She was TOLD to drink lots of water
on
Death by Coffee?
·
· Score: 1
If you watch kids TV they talked about the dangers of Ecstacy on a Saturday morning show that had a 'doctor' expert.
He talked about how it dyhydrates you because you don't know how much water your losing and you can dance without realising how dangerously low on water you are becoming.
This was approx 2 weeks before she died.
I think she overdrank because she headed the warning and didn't want to dehydrate.
"Didn't you RTFA? The topic is Portable.Net which works on more platforms than Mono does.".NET makes no portablility claim, its a Windows product. We've been through this before with portable MFC from third parties. Why would you invest in cross platform software, where the company that makes it doesn't make it be cross platform, and its only third party clones that fill the hole? Why wouldn't you opt for a proper cross platform system where the supplier intentionally writes it to be cross platform?
Maybe I'm just naturally a suspicious person, but that blog seems like MS Turf to me, even the words used echo the PR language.
For example:
Fair Use is Not a Right It challenges claims made by some that DRM is evil because, among other things, it can take away "fair use" rights
Linus is OK with DRM There's a great discussion on Slashdot this morning about Linus Torvalds approving Linux kernel support for DRM.
A Canadian survey shows that while baby boomers generally agree that unauthorized downloads of Internet content are theft, their younger Generation X and Y counterparts view the practice as... (notice the use of word 'unauthorized')
Palladium versus the Broadcast Flag (Explaining how fluffy and warm palladium is).
Now's the perfect time, there's no valid argument against fair use, the lobbyist strategy seems to be "lets not talk about it" all the while strengthening copyright to make the grey area look blacker.
We have nothing to lose, since they can't make an everyday thing illegal, its an argument we can't lose.
.NET makes no portablility claim, its a Windows product.
The only reason any claim at all for.NET portability can be made is because of Mono. and thats not even a Microsoft project. Also it uses the emulator libs anyway to handle the Windows specific messages.
1. A fault is a fault, thats just a different failure mode. If you didn't do enough work to fix simple bugs like Null pointers, then why would you have done enough to clean up after NullReferenceExpceptions?
2. Its a more complicated system and so more likely to have bugs.
Its also extra unnecessary overhead and a dependancy on a runtime, the correct version of which needs to be on the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the thread higher up about heating air and driving a turbine, but then you get electricity in the middle of the day, how about this instead:
Boil water
Steam rises
Condense it higher up
Save the water for its potential energy to generate the electricity during the evening when you want it.
In other words Light->Heat->Potential Energy Store -> Electricity later.
So when its sunny you make your potential energy and use it when you want the electricity.
The energy to grow (Nitrogen fertilizers), ferment and distill alcohol is less than the energy you get out of it.
If you think about it, you want to replace the energy of tens of thousands of years of concentrated sunshine (in the form of plant growth), with 1 years plant growth (distilled to form alcohol). So how can the energy every replace what we have now even if you used cow manure and sunshine stills.
"it is a fundamental principle of illusionists to
misdirection with flashes and loud noises so that you will miss where the slight of hand is actually going on."
I think its Baystar, I suspect there is a money trail from Microsoft to Baystar.
I think Baystar needed to explain telephone calls between themselves and Microsoft and that was why they felt the need to explain 'informal low level discussions'.
I think that, as Baystar realized this could end up as a securities fraud case they got cold feet and wanted to bail.
I suspect there is a money trail from Baystar to Royal Bank of Canada or from MS to Royal Bank of Canada. I suspect Royal Bank of Canada faced possible securities investigation and wanted to bail too.
I think that Baystar had no choice but to buy Royal Bank of Canada's stake or risk them going to the SEC.
I think that this is going to go tits up soon.
So whatever you do, don't look for any money trail between MS to Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada, instead look at these ridiculous claims.
Note: I have no evidence, I'm guessing, or rather betting.
"What the fuck? The artists don't own the music, the record companies own the music. Just like my employer owns the code I write on his time. The artist gets tens of thousands of dollars when he submits the song, and even more if the thing sells well once the company has recorded and distributed it."
Rubbish, the artists are loaned enough to make the master recording.
It's like your company lending you the money to buy the computer they require you to use.
The costs of making the recording are then taken from the artists meagre royalties.
Thats like your employee saying, "you've written this software and now you owe US $100,000".
Your employer then promotes this software, and sure they spend a lot of money promoting it, but then again, they get almost all of the reward if it sells, so they're really promoting their own product.
If the artists are lucky, they do well, most don't make back their costs.
The record company on the other hand makes an overall profit from a much lower sale level, because almost all of the money comes back to them.
"As much as I hate it, the 50 cents that goes to the artist (which is much more than most estimates I've heard) isn't really a fleecing."
I might agree with you, if the cost of the staff/studio/engineer etc., wasn't taken back out of the musicians 50 cents. The cost of making the masters, studio time etc. is all taken from the musicians royalties not the record companies.
If the record doesn't sell, they can recoup that cost from other records the artists make.
"Think about it: who did the hard work? "
The people making the music.
Here they are fighting as
b il l=1372526
"Protect Fair Use"
http://capwiz.com/protectfairuse/issues/bills/?
(repeated from higher up)
....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."
"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."
No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.
"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"
The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through.
I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.
If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?
"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."
So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't.
Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.
"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source',
Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't.
This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.
"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."
Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct.
The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology.
Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.
Parliament did a good job.
"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"
It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.
Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.
"Firstly, the EU directive just _harmonises existing case law_ - without the directive, what's going to happen is that different EU states are going to take different approaches and thus it will be a nightmare."
....It doesn't seem as though Linux, OpenOffice, mysql and numerous other open source products have been affected anything more than trivially."
No the European patent office started allowing software patents, this gives a legal basis for those patents.
"Secondly, the EU directive _actually reduces the degree of software patentability"
The Parliaments suggestions were valid and carefully thought through.
I've read ffii's comment's and they are valid too, the Commissions wording is full of holes.
If Pariament & People's comments didn't have validity then why seek to prevent those comments being expressed? Why not just argue your case to EU Parliament?
"Thirdly, it's been stated over and over again that there are 'multiple software business models' at work in Europe, and there's no specific reason to favour closed model approaches to open model approaches: they all work, and provide revenue and so on."
So? What has that to do with anything, the risk is that a monopoly player will be able to lock out competitors, the Parliament proposed a solution to this, the Commission didn't.
Whether that competition comes from closed or open source is irrelevant.
"Fourthly, in terms of 'software patents blocking open source',
Your comment pre-supposes that the directive represents the status quo and it certainly doesn't.
This *changes* the law, if it didn't there wouldn't be any point in having it! So whether patents *currently* affect MySql etc. or not is irrelevant.
"Fifthly, the EU always maintains more stricter examination than the US: business methods per se are _not_ patentable in the EU, and equally, flakey software patents have a harder time getting through. Stop transposing the failures of US into the EU."
Good, but the wording proposed by the Commission is fluffy. For example FFII comments on the "technology" issue are correct.
The Commissions wording does allow patents whose technology part is simply that they execute on a computer. Parliament's wording is tighter meaning that the invention has to represent improved technology.
Since any business process can be run on a computer, it allows business process patents simply by virtue of sloppy wording.
Parliament did a good job.
"Finally, the protests in Brussels are are a laugh: against multimillion dollar turnover businesses using patents and contributing to the wellbeing of the EU economy"
It's not in the interests of the European economy to allow a few patent holders to lock themselves into the their markets. Even if that patent holder is Nokia.
Being pro-competition isn't the same as being anti-business.
"Ease of use and brand recognition. iTunes' predecessors failed because they were obscure and difficult to use."
Isn't making unlimited CDs and running it on many computers part of "ease of use"?, i.e. the feature of Apples reduced DRM? So aren't you accepting (at least in part) that the turned down DRM contributed? Would removing the restrictions completely not make it even easier to use? Because then I could play it on my MP3 players etc. without a burn-rip stage.
"The fact that iTunes tracks have DRM makes it inconvenient for people to pirate them. It's easier to just buy them than it is to pirate them."
With iTunes DRM: Pirate want to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.
Without iTunes DRM: Pirate wants to download a copy of Britney, so they go to Kazaa and download it.
If iTunes was the only way to get the network seeded with Britney then your argument might be valid, but as long as there are many other *unprotected* ways to do it (including ripping from iTunes made CDs) then the DRM on iTunes does not affect that piracy.
In other words, you can lock the door, but the windows are wide open so the house is wide open.
(For local person to person piracy you would just write out an unprotected CD, so it doesn't help there either.)
"But apparently the difference in value is (1) insignificant, or (2) not at all universal, because iTunes has succeeded. DRM, therefore, is not an impediment to success in the marketplace, as the "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to think it was."
The DRM can be an "impediment to success", yet you can still succeed. In this case it stops Apple selling tracks to users like me, who have MP3 players that aren't iPod.
The option of writing out a CDR and ripping it back into MP3 is so overly complicated and time consuming as to cut Apple out of that potential market. If the DRM wasn't there that wouldn't be a problem.
Apple have their niche, but its still a tiny success hampered by their DRM.
The "DRM DOESN'T WORK" guy seemed to be pointing to the basic flaw of DRM, sooner or later you have to decrypt the data and it only takes 1 person to seed a piracy network with an unprotected copy.
"On store--Buy Music--said they had a larger catalog"
Are you asserting that Apple succeeded because it had a bigger catalogue than the competition? Before iTunes launched, the competition had hundreds of thousands of tracks more than iTunes, because iTunes had zero - it hadn't launched yet!
Yet none of those earlier download sites succeeded. The only novel thing iTunes brought to the market was considerably weakened DRM not more tracks than the competition.
"It's very difficult to find via Kazaa what you can get easily and quickly via iTunes."
My Kazaa reply was in response to your "DRM stops people copying music by making it more difficult" comment.
It might be true that tracks are quicker to find on iTunes than Kazaa, but the DRM has nothing to do with it. The DRM on iTunes has no effect on the unprotected DRM experience on Kazaa.
"DRM reduces the perceived value of the music...
Nonsense. If that were universally true, iTunes would not have succeeded to the degree that is has."
You've asserted that without making an argument as to why your assertion is true.
Without DRM I can play the iTunes tracks on my MP3 player, with DRM I can't, only iPod and CD players. So of course its worth more to me without the DRM than with.
"iTunes ...would it be going any less strong if they had,...convinced the RIAA to go with non-DRM protected AAC files?
Yes. Because they would not have the selection of music they have today. "
It wasn't the wide selection of records that caused iTunes to succeed, many other online services had bigger catalogues, it was the reduction in the DRM that was the big difference with the previous download stores.
"Furthermore, do you think the DRM they do have stops anybody who wants to from copying the music?
Yes. Because it's easier, faster, and more convenient to just buy the damn thing."
The Kazaa copy has no DRM. If you lock the door, but leave the windows wide open, saying that nobody goes through the door therefore the door is working is true, but of no value. It may be FASTER & CHEAPER to buy the door key, rather than break the door down and go through the doors, but the windows are open!
"Of course it will. All you have to do is make it more convenient to buy the real thing than to pirate it. "
True, sort of. I think people perceive a value for an iTunes song. That value derives from it being legal, and high quality. As long as the price Apple charges is less than the perceived value of it, people are happy to pay.
DRM reduces the perceived value of the music, because it reduces flexibility and therefore the value of the music is less to the consumer, and the price it can support is less.
"This is like me going around handing out Uzi 9 millimeters to whoever wants one, and substantiating my actions by saying 'well this doesn't give the user any special facilities they didn't have before'
Possession of an unlicensed weapon & distributing unlicensed weapons is a crime, distributing tape recorders isn't. Your analogy does not hold up.
"PlayFair is dangerous - it is an assault on the security of DRM...By undermining this DRM it encourages record companies to sway towards enforcing more arcane DRM,not removing it."
Not so, the DRM could never work because you always have to decrypt the music to play it, so you always have to provide the key. DRM could never work, go ahead make it more restrictive, add dongles, widgets or Palladium none of it could ever work.
"What do people expect? That by cracking the DRM of the music services the record industry will just give up completely on DRM? "
Yes, it can never work, this shows them that it can never work. After a dozen more failed attempts to make this DRM stuff work, they will stop throwing money down the drain on it.
"You do not get your message across by breaking the law"
Playfair breaks no laws, Apple's EULA is not a law and never will be.
"PlayFair is counterproductive to reducing DRM restrictions. It makes it more difficult for bridge companies to work out issues with the recording companies, hampering the progress of online music."
Online music is doing just fine, *selling* online music was the failure until Apple turned down the DRM.
"The recording industry will simply take their ball home altogether."
Last 12 albums I've bought have been unprotect MP3 VBRs from the likes of Magnatune. Who cares what the DRM guys do, other companies will take their place! This is excellent for Apple & the Record companies because before people like me would never consider iTMS, but now we will. It does no extra piracy damage, because there was always a way to bypass the DRM in iTms anyway by ripping from CD.
"If you really have a problem with the terms of Apple's DRM, here is how to go about making your voice heard: 1. Consumer action. don't buy from iTMS. 2. Write to Apple/Your local newspaper/Your congressman with your views."
Or download playfair and continue to buy music. That way YOU get what YOU want, unprotected music and Apple & the record industry gets what it wants MONEY. A win win situation for all concerned. There's no law to change here, Playfair is LEGAL in India.
"Breaking the DRM will always make things worse for all involved, and will spoil the fun for those who at the moment DO enjoy the services of the iTMS and aren't impacted by the DRM, of which there are millions."
DRM isn't fun.
"Yah, where the shit did that sig come from?"
I think the Sig was the whole point of his post.
(18 words in the Sig, only 13 in the post, the Sig WAS the message he's pushing).
He made a short comment simply repeating the stories angle, followed by a misleading political statement as a sig.
Do you think he got 5 points for restating the competition angle already mentioned in the original story? Probably not, Bush supporters mod him up to push the sig message.
From the story:
"Here I was thinking that satellite radio was a good thing for competition in radio. "
From his comment:
"XM and Sirius ARE good for competition, that's why ClearChannel doesn't like them"
Not insightful.
"'4 out of 5 of America's enemy leaders support Kerry for President. Why do you suppose that is? '
5 out of 5, Spain just change governments."
6 out of 6, rogue state Taiwan backs away from Bush. Better add them to the list.
"4 out of 5 of America's enemy leaders support Kerry for President. Why do you suppose that is? "
5 out of 5, Spain just change governments.
There's papers already written about Google's existing file system. It is 'append only', they build up large 40GB+ chunk files on Linux servers and flag stuff within the file as deleted, without actucally deleting it.
So they probably only compact a file when it becomes mostly deleted entries.
They're probably using the same system for GMail, so even if you delete stuff, its not really deleted until the file store its on it compacted.
Hence the terms of service.
If you watch kids TV they talked about the dangers of Ecstacy on a Saturday morning show that had a 'doctor' expert.
He talked about how it dyhydrates you because you don't know how much water your losing and you can dance without realising how dangerously low on water you are becoming.
This was approx 2 weeks before she died.
I think she overdrank because she headed the warning and didn't want to dehydrate.
"Didn't you RTFA? The topic is Portable.Net which works on more platforms than Mono does." .NET makes no portablility claim, its a Windows product. We've been through this before with portable MFC from third parties. Why would you invest in cross platform software, where the company that makes it doesn't make it be cross platform, and its only third party clones that fill the hole? Why wouldn't you opt for a proper cross platform system where the supplier intentionally writes it to be cross platform?
Maybe I'm just naturally a suspicious person, but that blog seems like MS Turf to me, even the words used echo the PR language.
.
For example:
Fair Use is Not a Right
It challenges claims made by some that DRM is evil because, among other things, it can take away "fair use" rights
Linus is OK with DRM
There's a great discussion on Slashdot this morning about Linus Torvalds approving Linux kernel support for DRM
A Canadian survey shows that while baby boomers generally agree that unauthorized downloads of Internet content are theft, their younger Generation X and Y counterparts view the practice as...
(notice the use of word 'unauthorized')
Palladium versus the Broadcast Flag
(Explaining how fluffy and warm palladium is).
"I wouldn't risk it right now."
Now's the perfect time, there's no valid argument against fair use, the lobbyist strategy seems to be "lets not talk about it" all the while strengthening copyright to make the grey area look blacker.
We have nothing to lose, since they can't make an everyday thing illegal, its an argument we can't lose.
"Where is it illegal? UK? They don't want to be a part of Europe anyway"
Then there's no argument against having it in a unified EU copyright!
The EU should have done this, so that Europe can unify their fair use provisions.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that the EU could declare Format Shifting legal, Backups legal and so on, just as long as you still own the original.
Its a mess right now, with everyday acts (like ripping CDs to MP3s) being copyright infringements in some countries but not others.
Why should an everyday act, done by everyone, that has no financial impact on the copyright holder, be illegal? Because the BSA wants it to be?
They could do some work there.
"An unhandled exception prints a nice stack trace to stderr which makes it easier for you to figure out what went wrong. "
Dr Watson does this.
.NET makes no portablility claim, its a Windows product.
.NET portability can be made is because of Mono. and thats not even a Microsoft project. Also it uses the emulator libs anyway to handle the Windows specific messages.
The only reason any claim at all for
1. A fault is a fault, thats just a different failure mode. If you didn't do enough work to fix simple bugs like Null pointers, then why would you have done enough to clean up after NullReferenceExpceptions?
2. Its a more complicated system and so more likely to have bugs.
Its also extra unnecessary overhead and a dependancy on a runtime, the correct version of which needs to be on the machine.