That said, how do they get around by not making osx oss? Just curious.
The answer is right in front of you. There is no "getting around" anything. The GPL requires you to make the source of your modified versions available. It doesn't require you to make your completely unrelated code (i.e. the rest of Mac OS X) GPL.
Except that buying DRM'd music is, objectively, a poor value proposition.
Including the word "objectively" in your opinion does not actually make it an objective analysis. Nor does it change the fact that your argument is based on a point that you haven't actually made.
The attitute you espouse is responsible for blah blah blah blah blah.
I'll bet you've got a whole stable full of high horses, don't you?
If only five computers can play the file at any one time why not allow additional downloads?
The main reason is that Apple pays the labels on a per-download basis. Why was that an acceptable deal for them? Because copying a file from one computer you own to another computer you own is among the easiest things a person can do. And it's even easier with an iPod.
No, Apple is not responsible for their customer's misconceptions, but it probably is not wise to ignore something that could lead to people deciding to never use your project again.
I wouldn't call multiple warnings, a built-in backup feature, and the ability to make unlimited copies "ignoring".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: That's not even what's going on.
Sarcastic answer: I have a boatload of vinyl records that I can't play on my CD player because those evil record companies are limiting my ability to listen to them on whatever device I choose. I suppose I could just connect my turntable to the computer, copy the records, and burn some CDs, but that's clearly an unacceptable loss of quality, and then I wouldn't have anything to complain about on Slashdot.
Considering you have to authorize a computer to play files to begin with why should there be any limits on the number of times you can download a file?
This doesn't make any sense. You don't have to authorize a computer to copy the file. There are no limits on copying the file. Why should you be able to download it more than once?
So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?
I expect so. After all, when CDs first came out all of my vinyl and cassettes suddenly transformed into CDs. Oh wait, no they didn't. Damn evil record companies.
We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works.
Right. Which is why there are are a hell of a lot of ways to copy DRMed works. You can't act as though they don't exist, just because some people find them unacceptable.
While older DRM mechanisms such as CSS did nothing to prevent copying, newer systems work by associating players and content via hardware keys
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The law requires that copyrighted material be made available to the public domain (hence the original purpose of the Library of Congress)
If I take a public domain work and encrypt it I haven't done anything to change the fact that the work is in the public domain. You're confusing the content, which is copyrightable, and the medium, which is not.
DRM enforces this restriction, but there is no feasible way (that I can think of, or that I've seen in proposed) for the files to be unlocked after the copyright ends, which results in indefinite copyright protection.
VHS tapes with Macrovision won't spontaneously stop having Macrovision after the films they contain lapse into the public domain. That doesn't change the fact that the films are in the public domain. Stop confusing the content with the medium.
After this time period expires, the creative works get released into the public domain. Unfortunately, DRM'd files don't do this- the music you bought on iTunes in 2003 will still be restricted in 3003.
You're confusing two different things here. The files you purchased on iTunes may, in theory, continue to be restricted. This doesn't change anything about the copyright status of the content.
In particular, the DMCA anti-circumvention law in the US is unconstitutional because it does not require publishers to disable their DRM protection, or arrange for it to disable itself, upon the expiration of copyright protection.
So what? Upon the expiration of copyright, the content still falls into the public domain. What difference does it make if the particular copy you purchased is encrypted?
Say for instance I want to listen to some tunes and I can only get it in MS DRM protected files which don't work in my car stereo or on my linux machine, you see now we got a problem.
Don't buy something that doesn't do what you want. Problem solved. It is no different than if you bought a CD when your car only has a tape deck.
You cannot technically DRM protect content in a way which will allow legal fair use for the purchaser of the product.....period.
Thank you for explaining that. I like how you actually backed up your assertion with facts. That's rare in this day and age.
I see newgroups full of people trying to get songs they PURCHASED off their Ipods onto their computers.
Given that you have to buy the music on your computer before you can transfer it to the iPod, this seems like a pretty niche concern. Especially now that iTunes does it automatically.
ITunes also copies CD's into a propriety format, to make sharing more difficult.
iTunes rips to standard AAC by default. Many other programs and devices will play AAC, including oddly enough, Zune.
I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.
Indeed. If you're paying $40 a month for cable TV and only actually watching a handful of shows, a few $30 season passes on iTunes may come out a lot cheaper over time. Plus, you get the re-watchability of a DVD months before the show is available on DVD.
I doubt she has a program worth $15k and a machine worth $150k.
That doesn't mean she can't unwittingly buy pirated designs, which is what the accusation is. There are only a handful of common formats, used from the low-end to high-end, so it's quite plausible. I was only trying to correct the assumption that the users of these designs necessarily had the skills to create them.
There has to be PLENTY of people into embroidery that have the skills to design their own patterns right?
You'd be surprised. I know I was when my dad's wife started a home-based embroidery business. While there is cheap (~$200) and simple embroidery design software, the mid- to high-end of the market is more like CAD/CAM territory, with a similar level of skill needed. We're talking $15,000 software for your $150,000 machine. The designs being pirated here probably for this latter kind of work.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, how do they get around by not making osx oss? Just curious.
The answer is right in front of you. There is no "getting around" anything. The GPL requires you to make the source of your modified versions available. It doesn't require you to make your completely unrelated code (i.e. the rest of Mac OS X) GPL.
i=2673.7
With Metasploit you can make i = 4456.66
Except that buying DRM'd music is, objectively, a poor value proposition.
Including the word "objectively" in your opinion does not actually make it an objective analysis. Nor does it change the fact that your argument is based on a point that you haven't actually made.
The attitute you espouse is responsible for blah blah blah blah blah.
I'll bet you've got a whole stable full of high horses, don't you?
If only five computers can play the file at any one time why not allow additional downloads?
The main reason is that Apple pays the labels on a per-download basis. Why was that an acceptable deal for them? Because copying a file from one computer you own to another computer you own is among the easiest things a person can do. And it's even easier with an iPod.
No, Apple is not responsible for their customer's misconceptions, but it probably is not wise to ignore something that could lead to people deciding to never use your project again.
I wouldn't call multiple warnings, a built-in backup feature, and the ability to make unlimited copies "ignoring".
How is it a loss of quality?
Look up, for there you will find something far over your head, wooshing by.
He is a...blahblahblah
What the hell are you talking about? No, wait. Don't answer. In fact, please never attempt to post a comment ever again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the limiting of consumers' ability to listen, in private, to what they've legally acquired on whatever device they choose a violiation of the copyright act?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: That's not even what's going on.
Sarcastic answer: I have a boatload of vinyl records that I can't play on my CD player because those evil record companies are limiting my ability to listen to them on whatever device I choose. I suppose I could just connect my turntable to the computer, copy the records, and burn some CDs, but that's clearly an unacceptable loss of quality, and then I wouldn't have anything to complain about on Slashdot.
Considering you have to authorize a computer to play files to begin with why should there be any limits on the number of times you can download a file?
This doesn't make any sense. You don't have to authorize a computer to copy the file. There are no limits on copying the file. Why should you be able to download it more than once?
So, what happens at the end of "the temporary right"? I mean, will iPods suddenly allow us unrestricted use of legally purchased files?
I expect so. After all, when CDs first came out all of my vinyl and cassettes suddenly transformed into CDs. Oh wait, no they didn't. Damn evil record companies.
We in no way, shape, or form grant a permanent right to restrict others from copying works.
Right. Which is why there are are a hell of a lot of ways to copy DRMed works. You can't act as though they don't exist, just because some people find them unacceptable.
Anyone who buys DRM'd music is either an idiot or ignorant
Or perhaps they just don't share your values. God forbid people should think for themselves.
17556639 poop
Actually, I think that's just a regular AOL user. I think a more likely zombie is user #17293141:
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
17293141 brains
Now, this may seem like a paranoid concern...
Slightly, yes.
While older DRM mechanisms such as CSS did nothing to prevent copying, newer systems work by associating players and content via hardware keys
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The law requires that copyrighted material be made available to the public domain (hence the original purpose of the Library of Congress)
If I take a public domain work and encrypt it I haven't done anything to change the fact that the work is in the public domain. You're confusing the content, which is copyrightable, and the medium, which is not.
DRM enforces this restriction, but there is no feasible way (that I can think of, or that I've seen in proposed) for the files to be unlocked after the copyright ends, which results in indefinite copyright protection.
VHS tapes with Macrovision won't spontaneously stop having Macrovision after the films they contain lapse into the public domain. That doesn't change the fact that the films are in the public domain. Stop confusing the content with the medium.
After this time period expires, the creative works get released into the public domain. Unfortunately, DRM'd files don't do this- the music you bought on iTunes in 2003 will still be restricted in 3003.
You're confusing two different things here. The files you purchased on iTunes may, in theory, continue to be restricted. This doesn't change anything about the copyright status of the content.
In particular, the DMCA anti-circumvention law in the US is unconstitutional because it does not require publishers to disable their DRM protection, or arrange for it to disable itself, upon the expiration of copyright protection.
So what? Upon the expiration of copyright, the content still falls into the public domain. What difference does it make if the particular copy you purchased is encrypted?
Say for instance I want to listen to some tunes and I can only get it in MS DRM protected files which don't work in my car stereo or on my linux machine, you see now we got a problem.
Don't buy something that doesn't do what you want. Problem solved. It is no different than if you bought a CD when your car only has a tape deck.
You cannot technically DRM protect content in a way which will allow legal fair use for the purchaser of the product.....period.
Thank you for explaining that. I like how you actually backed up your assertion with facts. That's rare in this day and age.
I see newgroups full of people trying to get songs they PURCHASED off their Ipods onto their computers.
Given that you have to buy the music on your computer before you can transfer it to the iPod, this seems like a pretty niche concern. Especially now that iTunes does it automatically.
ITunes also copies CD's into a propriety format, to make sharing more difficult.
iTunes rips to standard AAC by default. Many other programs and devices will play AAC, including oddly enough, Zune.
The 17" MacBook pro is no lightweight system either.
6.8 pounds is decidedly less than than 18.3 pounds.
I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.
Indeed. If you're paying $40 a month for cable TV and only actually watching a handful of shows, a few $30 season passes on iTunes may come out a lot cheaper over time. Plus, you get the re-watchability of a DVD months before the show is available on DVD.
I doubt she has a program worth $15k and a machine worth $150k.
That doesn't mean she can't unwittingly buy pirated designs, which is what the accusation is. There are only a handful of common formats, used from the low-end to high-end, so it's quite plausible. I was only trying to correct the assumption that the users of these designs necessarily had the skills to create them.
Did you RTFA?
Did you read the comment that I was replying to? Or mine for that matter?
There has to be PLENTY of people into embroidery that have the skills to design their own patterns right?
You'd be surprised. I know I was when my dad's wife started a home-based embroidery business. While there is cheap (~$200) and simple embroidery design software, the mid- to high-end of the market is more like CAD/CAM territory, with a similar level of skill needed. We're talking $15,000 software for your $150,000 machine. The designs being pirated here probably for this latter kind of work.
Are they also checking on the Honesty and Integrity of the creditors?
A typical movie, if compressed by half, will fit on a standard 4.5 GB DVD (unit cost $.10 without case).
If compressed with h.264 instead of MPEG-2, at similar bitrates to what iTunes currently uses for TV shows: a typical movie takes up about 400MB.