Is it just me or does this site seem a bit, well, scummy ? I mean, he's gota ton of audio books online, you can download them singly for free at 8kbps (yikes), not only does it cost you a heap for better versions but he'll charge you $2 just to zip them up, hell, it'll cost you $200 just to get them put on the mp3 player he's selling. He wants libraries, schools etc to give him free advertising.
The licence agreement prohibits redistribution of even the free versions, and cites the DMCA, and I'm willing to bet if he pays the narrators at all it's a pittance.
Huh, I hadn't noticed that in the license agreement, but you're absolutely right. It's just stupid not to allow redistribution, at the very least of the free version. So, I don't know if that's "scummy" or merely foolish. I have no idea what the deal is with the narrators, but it's quite possible that they are volunteer (or just-barely-paid) actors, looking to break into the business. Again, the scumminess of that is debatable. I don't find the cost of the better-quality versions to be "a heap" (compare the prices over at www.audible.com, another site I like but can barely afford), but you're right that charging two dollars just to zip the files is absurd.
Even before I clicked on the "these guys" link, I was thinking, "This has gotta be audiobooksforfree.com". I've spent the last few weeks listening to the works of Conan Doyle and Verne from that site, and every file starts with an announcement by a thickly Russian accented voice: "File tventy-seiven. No adverts. From audiobookfor free.com"
When I saw MP3 player and AK-47 in conjunction, I figured, "Yup, that'll be this guy." And now I have a picture to go with the voice doing the intros. He doesn't read the books, thank Buddha!
The site is worth checking out if you like audio books: free for low quality, cheap (a few US$) for increased bitrates. Nice idea: try it out first to see if you like it, then pay a few bucks if you want better fidelity. You don't need much, for voice, but 8 kbit is a bit on the low side. The narrators vary in quality, but the ones I've heard have all been at least competent, and some were very good.
Companies have teams of people that they pay to review and test products. This is the only way for them to get large amounts of feedback during development; if they just threw their unfinished product at end users and said "Here, find out what's wrong, and by the way, we won't pay you," the end users would go "Pshh, find out yourself. Then deliver it to us."
Not sure history bears this out . . . It suggests, in fact, that the end users would say, "Yessir, Mr. Gates."
Semi-seriously, it does seem that Microsoft has managed to get people accustomed to software that doesn't work very well for the first few iterations, thus effectively using end-users as beta testers. There may even be merits to this approach, since that way you get feedback from the very people who use the software -- but that's exactly the sort of feedback you get in open source development, too.
I don't understand . . . Does an image having a fractal structure really compress better than one without? I can see that it might compress really well if you could detect the underlying algorithm: "Hey, that's region X of the Mandelbrot set", so its Kolmogorov complexity would be pretty low. But does gzip really detect this? As an image, that bit of the Mandelbrot set might be pretty hard to compress.
I just find it strange that I keep reading comments nodding at the assumption that being fractalish means easy compression . ..
Massive cover-up by scientists!
on
SOHO Strikes Back
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Take a look at this SOHO image! Not only is the Solar system crawling with UFOs, but they've also been concealing the fact that the Sun is mounted on a giant stick! Sure, they say the stick is just a shadow from a pylon in front of the camera, but we know the truth, don't we?
Now the real question is: whose stick is it? And are they likely to come back and probe us?
If the poster's sources are mainly Slashdot stories, then he/she is presumably aware that the RIAA makes albums from the blood of children, while evicting widows and orphans from their homes and removing the fingernails of musicians for amusement.
In fact, a more balanced view would be that the RIAA does only some of these things, not all of them.
(Yeah, yeah, the RIAA doesn't make albums at all, it represents people who do. But just try working that into a feeble joke.)
Oh, come now . . . The fact that it doesn't work well in Antarctica is hardly a damning revelation! If you insist on living at one of the poles, you're probably going to have trouble with your utilities.:) Satellite coverage is tricky for regions beyond the sightlines of geosynchrous satellites, as Canada, Russia, and (apparently) Antarctica know all too well.
I don't think the satellite access providers are going to be swayed by their inability to reach Antarctica's, what, 5000 inhabitants? It's like saying that phone lines are a bad idea because they won't reach the Space Station.
"What we hope this coating can do is amazing. We're also looking at making it seem invisible." . . . A prototype "smart" coating may be developed as early as 2005, she says.
I'm always unimpressed with this sort of "news". Of course what they hope it can do is amazing! And a lot of things "may" happen as early as 2005. But is there anything that indicates that they're making real progress? This is like a not-very-detailed grant proposal, in press release form.
To hear about cool things that one might do with nanotech, you're better off browsing the science fiction section of your local bookstore.
To argue that this is wrong because of defeating the DVD CSS in a DMCA-defying act is like arguing it's suddenly O.K. to roast Jews because Nazis in power passed a law saying so. (Yes, yes, Godwin's Law, and the concentration camps' purpose was somewhat hidden from the populace, so the analogy isn't perfect).
For the information of those, like me, who had never heard of Godwin's Law, it states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Just an apology to liquidsin: I just moderated your post, and I was SURE I'd marked it as "Informative", but to my horror, it came out as "Offtopic" when I hit the Moderate button. Sorry about that! I can't find any way to retract an accidental moderation.
Our company deals with medical records in a peripheral sort of way (as they pertain to student loans)
"Mr. Peterson? This is your student loan officer. We note from your medical records that you still have both of your kidneys. We note from our financial records that you still owe us $40,000. Are you aware of how much a healthy kidney can fetch on the black market? Hello? Hello?"
#1: Engineers don't take any other courses (from what I've been seeing) besides the engineering courses. No history, humanities, fine arts, etc. It makes for a more well-balanced person. It should be required.
I do agree that everyone should have a balanced education. But let me sound off for a moment on one of my pet peeves: EVERYONE should have a balanced education, not just those in the sciences or engineering! It continually annoys me that "geeks" are made to feel sheepish about any lack of "breadth" they may have, while those in the humanities are free to boast about their complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics, apparently feeling no shame about it.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said.
The next time someone accuses you of lacking breadth, don't get all hangdog about it. Instead, ask them if they can integrate, or if they know how the force of gravitational attraction varies with distance. If not, ask them why not.:)
The number 196 NEVER becomes a palindrome, no matter how many iterations you do. I have assuredly found an admirable proof of this, but the Post Comment box is too narrow to contain it.
Is there some reason why you can't just post the article and then, if you have some comments about it, follow up with a post like the rest of us peons?
Still, I think you should come join the rest of us if you want to editorialize.
Yes, Heaven forbid that one of the EDITORS should editorialize.
Fools! Don't you realize that denying pop-up ads is stealing web-based content, just the same way that skipping TV commercials is stealing television programs?
I'm not sure how sarcastic I'm being, here, when you get right down to it. It's clear that if advertising is supposed to make possibile all the free content we're used to, then the ability to block all ads is something of an issue. (Is it actually advertising that keeps web sites going? Or is it pixies? I've never figured it out.)
What I am sure of is that people shouldn't be prevented from blocking ads if they want to. If that causes a problem for advertisers, so be it. And certainly, people not viewing the ads aren't in any sense "thieves" -- you put ads out there hoping that people will view them, but you can't force people to view them. (Well, you can try, if you can afford the politicians.)
Like everyone keeps saying around here: things may change. For example, if ads no longer seem to be working (because, f'r instance, nobody ever sees them anyone), the nature of free content on the Web may alter. If this inconveniences either the viewers of that content, or the advertisers, well, tough.
I conclude with a quote from Heinlein, which should be sent to all relevant parties, once a day:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute nor common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." --Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
One of the more amusing displays was this sword-fighting simulator that used a VR headset along with a "virtual sword" that had two gyro motors running it that allowed for tactile force feedback. Apparently, one overly exuberant combatant in a moment of pique jumped up to deliver the death-blow, and upon landing smashed the sword into one of the posts you see in this picture, leaving it in pieces, and the device's creators nearly in tears. But, they were able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and the virtual combat raged on. This system also used multi-channel audio to help the player localize sounds and better immerse them in the scene, and also used video compositing to put an image of that particular player into the rendered 3D scene.
If this became a home entertainment unit, can you imagine the sort of waiver the company would want the average geek to sign before using it?
"The undersigned (hereafter, "they") agrees that Swashing Buckles Incorporated (hereafter, "we") were just sitting around innocently when the undersigned came in and DEMANDED to be given one of these virtual sword units, despite the fact that we warned them OVER and OVER that they hadn't done anything more strenuous than click a mouse in TEN YEARS, and therefore would ALMOST CERTAINLY strain EVERY MUSCLE IN THEIR BODY within minutes of engaging in a virtual battle. The undersigned further agrees that we warned them that they would QUITE LIKELY destroy a valued POSSESSION, PET, or LOVED ONE, while leaping about blindly inside the virtual reality helmet. The undersigned agrees NOT TO COME CRYING TO US when these things happen."
From the article (Reuters): "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal." [emphasis added]
If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.
Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.
But here's hoping the broadcasters win. It would be great news for webcasters: just eliminate choice, the way God intended, and you're allowed to broadcast over the Web for free!
Because I am a mature individual, I have been able to resist the temptation to stand, face the general direction of Redmond, waggle my fingers and shout, "Neener! Neener!" (I've resisted so far, but I may break down at any time.) Also, I'm trying not to mail a dozen cans of pickled herring to Bill Gates.
They also looked at Snort, but found that all the products generated way too many false alarms.
Curses, foiled again! If it weren't for that pesky "not too many false alarms" requirement, I'd be able to create terrific security software. I'm picturing a system that generates a "WARNING: NETWORK SECURITY BREACH" message every five minutes, rain or shine. Keeps the sysadmins on their toes, and foils all network intruders who aren't fast enough to be in and out in five minutes.
Noted! Don't know what possessed me to use mock Spanish in the first place.:)
Request for comments: Using RPM safely?
on
Is RPM Doomed?
·
· Score: 1
I'd love it if people could weigh in with some comments on how to use RPM in a secure manner. I often (well, usually in fact) end up installing things as root, and occasionally this scares the hell out of me, when I stop to think about it. If the package isn't what it says it is, who knows what it could be doing . ..
This strikes me as a major danger of RPM, though not one that's the fault of the system -- it's the fault of users like me, who find RPM convenient without necessarily knowing what we should do to achieve both convenience and security.
What do security-conscious people do about this? I know we can verify authenticity of packages -- is taking that step sufficient? I don't want to relocate everything to install in my home directory -- I back up those files separately, and I don't when gigs of intalled applications sitting in there. I suppose I could create install directories accessible to humble-user-dave . . . Comments welcomed.
From the article (the "Cary Sherman whine" referred to in the posting):
"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said. "Motion picture studios, and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful." [said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America]
Umm... Cary, mi amigo: The copy protections on video tapes and computer games don't cause your VCR or computer to become unusable. If they did, those industries would have exactly the same problem you're currently having. Putting a warning label saying "Be careful, this apparently innocent disc may eat your computer" isn't sufficient: it would be better to, oh, I don't know, maybe use a method that works without breaking things?
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me or does this site seem a bit, well, scummy ? I mean, he's gota ton of audio books online, you can download them singly for free at 8kbps (yikes), not only does it cost you a heap for better versions but he'll charge you $2 just to zip them up, hell, it'll cost you $200 just to get them put on the mp3 player he's selling. He wants libraries, schools etc to give him free advertising.
The licence agreement prohibits redistribution of even the free versions, and cites the DMCA, and I'm willing to bet if he pays the narrators at all it's a pittance.
Huh, I hadn't noticed that in the license agreement, but you're absolutely right. It's just stupid not to allow redistribution, at the very least of the free version. So, I don't know if that's "scummy" or merely foolish. I have no idea what the deal is with the narrators, but it's quite possible that they are volunteer (or just-barely-paid) actors, looking to break into the business. Again, the scumminess of that is debatable. I don't find the cost of the better-quality versions to be "a heap" (compare the prices over at www.audible.com, another site I like but can barely afford), but you're right that charging two dollars just to zip the files is absurd.
Even before I clicked on the "these guys" link, I was thinking, "This has gotta be audiobooksforfree.com". I've spent the last few weeks listening to the works of Conan Doyle and Verne from that site, and every file starts with an announcement by a thickly Russian accented voice: "File tventy-seiven. No adverts. From audiobookfor free.com"
When I saw MP3 player and AK-47 in conjunction, I figured, "Yup, that'll be this guy." And now I have a picture to go with the voice doing the intros. He doesn't read the books, thank Buddha!
The site is worth checking out if you like audio books: free for low quality, cheap (a few US$) for increased bitrates. Nice idea: try it out first to see if you like it, then pay a few bucks if you want better fidelity. You don't need much, for voice, but 8 kbit is a bit on the low side. The narrators vary in quality, but the ones I've heard have all been at least competent, and some were very good.
Companies have teams of people that they pay to review and test products. This is the only way for them to get large amounts of feedback during development; if they just threw their unfinished product at end users and said "Here, find out what's wrong, and by the way, we won't pay you," the end users would go "Pshh, find out yourself. Then deliver it to us."
Not sure history bears this out . . . It suggests, in fact, that the end users would say, "Yessir, Mr. Gates."
Semi-seriously, it does seem that Microsoft has managed to get people accustomed to software that doesn't work very well for the first few iterations, thus effectively using end-users as beta testers. There may even be merits to this approach, since that way you get feedback from the very people who use the software -- but that's exactly the sort of feedback you get in open source development, too.
I don't understand . . . Does an image having a fractal structure really compress better than one without? I can see that it might compress really well if you could detect the underlying algorithm: "Hey, that's region X of the Mandelbrot set", so its Kolmogorov complexity would be pretty low. But does gzip really detect this? As an image, that bit of the Mandelbrot set might be pretty hard to compress.
.
I just find it strange that I keep reading comments nodding at the assumption that being fractalish means easy compression . .
Take a look at this SOHO image! Not only is the Solar system crawling with UFOs, but they've also been concealing the fact that the Sun is mounted on a giant stick! Sure, they say the stick is just a shadow from a pylon in front of the camera, but we know the truth, don't we?
Now the real question is: whose stick is it? And are they likely to come back and probe us?
If the poster's sources are mainly Slashdot stories, then he/she is presumably aware that the RIAA makes albums from the blood of children, while evicting widows and orphans from their homes and removing the fingernails of musicians for amusement.
In fact, a more balanced view would be that the RIAA does only some of these things, not all of them.
(Yeah, yeah, the RIAA doesn't make albums at all, it represents people who do. But just try working that into a feeble joke.)
Oh, come now . . . The fact that it doesn't work well in Antarctica is hardly a damning revelation! If you insist on living at one of the poles, you're probably going to have trouble with your utilities. :) Satellite coverage is tricky for regions beyond the sightlines of geosynchrous satellites, as Canada, Russia, and (apparently) Antarctica know all too well.
I don't think the satellite access providers are going to be swayed by their inability to reach Antarctica's, what, 5000 inhabitants? It's like saying that phone lines are a bad idea because they won't reach the Space Station.
"What we hope this coating can do is amazing. We're also looking at making it seem invisible." . . . A prototype "smart" coating may be developed as early as 2005, she says.
I'm always unimpressed with this sort of "news". Of course what they hope it can do is amazing! And a lot of things "may" happen as early as 2005. But is there anything that indicates that they're making real progress? This is like a not-very-detailed grant proposal, in press release form.
To hear about cool things that one might do with nanotech, you're better off browsing the science fiction section of your local bookstore.
"Hey baby, nice backend . . . Is that BSD?"
... just don't try anything like this in an actual bar.]
"Wanna show me your kernel?"
[C'mon, geeks of the world, there must be dozens more
To argue that this is wrong because of defeating the DVD CSS in a DMCA-defying act is like arguing it's suddenly O.K. to roast Jews because Nazis in power passed a law saying so. (Yes, yes, Godwin's Law, and the concentration camps' purpose was somewhat hidden from the populace, so the analogy isn't perfect).
For the information of those, like me, who had never heard of Godwin's Law, it states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Surely this isn't really being funded by Switzerland, it must be Sweden. After all, modular furniture is their major export, isn't it?
Just an apology to liquidsin: I just moderated your post, and I was SURE I'd marked it as "Informative", but to my horror, it came out as "Offtopic" when I hit the Moderate button. Sorry about that! I can't find any way to retract an accidental moderation.
Our company deals with medical records in a peripheral sort of way (as they pertain to student loans)
"Mr. Peterson? This is your student loan officer. We note from your medical records that you still have both of your kidneys. We note from our financial records that you still owe us $40,000. Are you aware of how much a healthy kidney can fetch on the black market? Hello? Hello?"
One that I've seen... well 2 actually.
:)
#1: Engineers don't take any other courses (from what I've been seeing) besides the engineering courses. No history, humanities, fine arts, etc. It makes for a more well-balanced person. It should be required.
I do agree that everyone should have a balanced education. But let me sound off for a moment on one of my pet peeves: EVERYONE should have a balanced education, not just those in the sciences or engineering! It continually annoys me that "geeks" are made to feel sheepish about any lack of "breadth" they may have, while those in the humanities are free to boast about their complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics, apparently feeling no shame about it.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said.
The next time someone accuses you of lacking breadth, don't get all hangdog about it. Instead, ask them if they can integrate, or if they know how the force of gravitational attraction varies with distance. If not, ask them why not.
The number 196 NEVER becomes a palindrome, no matter how many iterations you do. I have assuredly found an admirable proof of this, but the Post Comment box is too narrow to contain it.
(Apologies to Fermat.)
Is there some reason why you can't just post the article and then, if you have some comments about it, follow up with a post like the rest of us peons?
Still, I think you should come join the rest of us if you want to editorialize.
Yes, Heaven forbid that one of the EDITORS should editorialize.
Fools! Don't you realize that denying pop-up ads is stealing web-based content, just the same way that skipping TV commercials is stealing television programs?
I'm not sure how sarcastic I'm being, here, when you get right down to it. It's clear that if advertising is supposed to make possibile all the free content we're used to, then the ability to block all ads is something of an issue. (Is it actually advertising that keeps web sites going? Or is it pixies? I've never figured it out.)
What I am sure of is that people shouldn't be prevented from blocking ads if they want to. If that causes a problem for advertisers, so be it. And certainly, people not viewing the ads aren't in any sense "thieves" -- you put ads out there hoping that people will view them, but you can't force people to view them. (Well, you can try, if you can afford the politicians.)
Like everyone keeps saying around here: things may change. For example, if ads no longer seem to be working (because, f'r instance, nobody ever sees them anyone), the nature of free content on the Web may alter. If this inconveniences either the viewers of that content, or the advertisers, well, tough.
I conclude with a quote from Heinlein, which should be sent to all relevant parties, once a day:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute nor common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." --Robert Heinlein, Life Line, 1939
The article text is:
One of the more amusing displays was this sword-fighting simulator that used a VR headset along with a "virtual sword" that had two gyro motors running it that allowed for tactile force feedback. Apparently, one overly exuberant combatant in a moment of pique jumped up to deliver the death-blow, and upon landing smashed the sword into one of the posts you see in this picture, leaving it in pieces, and the device's creators nearly in tears. But, they were able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and the virtual combat raged on. This system also used multi-channel audio to help the player localize sounds and better immerse them in the scene, and also used video compositing to put an image of that particular player into the rendered 3D scene.
If this became a home entertainment unit, can you imagine the sort of waiver the company would want the average geek to sign before using it?
"The undersigned (hereafter, "they") agrees that Swashing Buckles Incorporated (hereafter, "we") were just sitting around innocently when the undersigned came in and DEMANDED to be given one of these virtual sword units, despite the fact that we warned them OVER and OVER that they hadn't done anything more strenuous than click a mouse in TEN YEARS, and therefore would ALMOST CERTAINLY strain EVERY MUSCLE IN THEIR BODY within minutes of engaging in a virtual battle. The undersigned further agrees that we warned them that they would QUITE LIKELY destroy a valued POSSESSION, PET, or LOVED ONE, while leaping about blindly inside the virtual reality helmet. The undersigned agrees NOT TO COME CRYING TO US when these things happen."
. . . military uses such as real-time satellite fed maps in the field.
Better make sure those satellite connections are really secure:
"All right, men, the enemy stronghold is dead ahead. Charge!"
[ten minutes later] "Uh, Sarge, we must have gotten turned around somehow, now it's directly behind us."
[fifteen minutes later] "Now it's saying we're in South-Central L.A. Stick together, men."
From the article (Reuters): "But Congress intended the law to apply only to services that would enable users to select and download songs, not online radio-style broadcasts that do not allow users to save songs, the broadcasters said in their appeal." [emphasis added]
If the ability to "save songs" is the main issue, there could be trouble if somebody realizes how easy it is to record streamed audio. Just click your favourite "record directly from the sound card" application, and there you are: a nice sound file containing the song you want.
Of course, you can do this with real radio broadcasts, too, but everyone's decision-making abilities go haywire as soon as the word "digital" enters the debate: the streamed version would yield a DIGITAL copy of the song in question, and is therefore evil and scary.
But here's hoping the broadcasters win. It would be great news for webcasters: just eliminate choice, the way God intended, and you're allowed to broadcast over the Web for free!
Because I am a mature individual, I have been able to resist the temptation to stand, face the general direction of Redmond, waggle my fingers and shout, "Neener! Neener!" (I've resisted so far, but I may break down at any time.) Also, I'm trying not to mail a dozen cans of pickled herring to Bill Gates.
They also looked at Snort, but found that all the products generated way too many false alarms.
Curses, foiled again! If it weren't for that pesky "not too many false alarms" requirement, I'd be able to create terrific security software. I'm picturing a system that generates a "WARNING: NETWORK SECURITY BREACH" message every five minutes, rain or shine. Keeps the sysadmins on their toes, and foils all network intruders who aren't fast enough to be in and out in five minutes.
Noted! Don't know what possessed me to use mock Spanish in the first place. :)
I'd love it if people could weigh in with some comments on how to use RPM in a secure manner. I often (well, usually in fact) end up installing things as root, and occasionally this scares the hell out of me, when I stop to think about it. If the package isn't what it says it is, who knows what it could be doing . . .
This strikes me as a major danger of RPM, though not one that's the fault of the system -- it's the fault of users like me, who find RPM convenient without necessarily knowing what we should do to achieve both convenience and security.
What do security-conscious people do about this? I know we can verify authenticity of packages -- is taking that step sufficient? I don't want to relocate everything to install in my home directory -- I back up those files separately, and I don't when gigs of intalled applications sitting in there. I suppose I could create install directories accessible to humble-user-dave . . . Comments welcomed.
From the article (the "Cary Sherman whine" referred to in the posting):
... Cary, mi amigo: The copy protections on video tapes and computer games don't cause your VCR or computer to become unusable. If they did, those industries would have exactly the same problem you're currently having. Putting a warning label saying "Be careful, this apparently innocent disc may eat your computer" isn't sufficient: it would be better to, oh, I don't know, maybe use a method that works without breaking things?
"Music creators have the right to protect their property from theft, just like owners of any other property," Sherman said. "Motion picture studios, and software and video game publishers have protected their works for years, and no one has even thought to claim that doing so was inappropriate, let alone unlawful." [said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Assn. of America]
Umm