Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?
They're trying to figure out who is the alpha so that they can know who to defer to. It's extremely difficult to make progress without a degree of deference, and when there is no established rule, competition is the most universal way to decide it. People that identify as geeks are quick to choose knowledge of intricate technical details as the competition. If you've ever had the displeasure of witnessing an unproductive geek argument devolve into physical violence, you'd see that they are largely the same thing.
The solution is to have some more socially acceptable (and hopefully less time-consuming) outlet for that competitive instinct. Depending on the group it could be some complex parliamentary procedure, pistols-at-dawn, or a simple "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
The challenge of this question is coming up with a description of the "problems" of DRM that actually sound like problems to "less-experienced users".
If you tell someone "When you buy from music from iTunes, you'll only be able to play it on all of your computers, all of your iPods, and all of your CD players.", chances are they aren't going to understand just how "obviously" oppressive and stifling that is.
One is open, but if you go through it, someone will punch you in the face.
Since you've strained the analogy this far, I'd might as well posit this addition: A bigass sign outside the room indicating to all of those who choose to enter (i.e. you) under exactly what circumstances they will be "punched in the face", as it were.
On the other hand, if you're equating lossy re-encoding with being punched in the face, I would suggest a re-evaluation of your priorities. The two are not comparable. No, really, they aren't.
That's an attractive device, but if it doesn't support Apple's DRM then I can't use legitimately purchased music on it directly.
Um, no. You can use all the legit music you want. It just won't be from iTunes.
So given the choice I'll remove the DRM rather than re-encode the music in a lossy manner...
Good luck finding a non-iPod device that will play even unencrypted AAC. You'd might as well do a lossy conversion. Or better yet, buy music in a format that you actually want to use instead of blaming the seller for not giving it to you for free.
The real question is, why are you so strongly against people making these choices for themselves?
I'm absolutely not against people making these choices. I'm against people spouting bullshit.
What do you mean using the file on an unsupported platform doesn't require breaking DRM?
It's funny: You ask this question and then you immediately answer it for yourself. It's almost as if you've made up your mind to ignore reality in favor of holding a strong opinion on an issue that doesn't actually effect you.
Why should people have to do that?
Let's say you're in a room and trying to get out. On one side of the room is an open door. On the other is a locked door. Assuming you want to get out, which way should you go? For bonus points: Which way would you go if, instead of wanting to get out, you wanted to make rhetorical arguments about being oppressed by evil corporations in order to make yourself feel smart?
Oh, by the way: Since you can't purchase the music on an unsupported platform, why would you need to play it on one? Perhaps because of a certain man, made of straw?
If you don't do that (and due to the required effort, most don't) then you don't see all of the information you want even though most of the screen is wasted space!.
Why make the assumption that you always want to see all of the information in all of the windows you have open? Just because a window is visible doesn't mean it is relevant to the current (and ever-changing) task.
Right now I'm typing a comment on Slashdot, but my mail client is open behind this window because I was reading email just a few minutes ago. When I'm done typing this comment, and close this window, I'll be back in my email client. Without the very simple ability to have windows overlap, I would be looking at two completely different and unrelated tasks, which doesn't seem like an improvement.
What are you talking about? Jobs probably leaked it himself.
You're absolutely right. Jobs "leaked" more than four thousand copies to WWDC attendees. Of course, that doesn't mean he told them to put it on P2P networks.
Yeah I'm sure. It was "leaked." As in, Apple wants more press so they do what they do with every other release and accidentally get a beta out the door.
Right, because there is no chance in hell that any one of four thousand WWDC attendees could have possibly uploaded a copy on their own. No chance in hell. It must be a secret corporate conspiracy to get buggy, incomplete software in the hands of end users, because that's good for business.
Here's a simpler explanation: anything that can end up on BitTorrent, will end up on BitTorrent.
One "family pack" copy of OS X is purchased, and the remaining 4 licenses are sold off to people on the Internet (who are given an image of the CD.)
"* Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."
It isn't "five Mac OS X licenses", it's one license for five computers.
I see on the Apple site that I can buy a single OS X license for $129 or a 5-pack family license for $199. The fine print says it is to be used on "Apple-labeled computers". Has anyone tested their willingness to sell to generic x86 owners?
If you look closely you'll see that the boxed version of Mac OS X is for PowerPC only. They don't currently sell the Universal version except with new Macs. And why would they? They've never sold any Intel machines that didn't already come with 10.4.
The miserable Dock is functionally very much like the WIndows 95 taskbar
In what way?
the Finder and OS now handle file extensions about the same way Windows does
This isn't even remotely true. Windows depends on file extensions almost exclusively. Mac OS only uses them in the absence of a Uniform Type Identifier, Type/Creator codes, or MIME type.
The only meat in this story is the specious jurisdiction issue. The fact that the guy is a blogger is irrelevant: anybody can go do jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury. Confusing the two issues may give the Blogodrome more to talk about, but it causes the point to be missed.
Think about that. It is easier to make a new one than to actually transfer the old one.
This is true for data, but not for the content, which is the valuable asset is being protected. Four megabytes of random data is not worth as much as four megabytes of data that can be decoded into a song. Why? Because it is more difficult to create a new song than random data.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product, so many people look elsewhere to get the things they want.
The fact that you, personally, do not want to pay a particular price does not make it unfair.
I would rather steal the music and send the artist a dollar or two.
What about the producer? What about the recording engineer? What about all of the other people involved in creating the recording that you've just stolen? Do they not deserve to be compensated for their work?
Recently a non-techie friend asked me if his ipod could "talk" to my Zen Mirco:M so he could borrow some music for a few days. I said "sure, they are just mp3s" - she wanted to know how that was possible...that it was so easy to copy and duplicate a file back and forth from my computer to my music device without any hassles...and after our discussion, she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM.
Nowhere in this incoherent story have you indicated what the actual "problem" was. On the one hand, you're saying that you were trying to connect an iPod to a Zen. The reason that wouldn't work has nothing to do with DRM. Also, you seem to be implying that you can't play MP3s on an iPod, which isn't true and wouldn't have anything to do with DRM if it was. Or maybe you mean to say that you were trying to copy music from the iPod to your Zen. That wouldn't work even without DRM, because the Zen can't play AAC.
Many other people are waking up to the fact that DRM is shorthand for "you really don't own this piece of music you paid $1 for, and that you can't share it, or copy it, or use it on a different computer."
In the case of iTunes DRM, none of those statements are true.
It is one of font caches. This is a very "stock" system and never used in DTP. I can't imagine DTP people's font caches right now.
Most DTP people would know that if fonts are crashing their system, it's probably because the the font itself is broken. That's why even FontBook comes with a validation capability. If you're having problems, you should validate any fonts you've installed. Clearing the cache might make the problem go away, but only until you re-load the bad font. It is not a fix.
Apple never supported the open source version of darwin in any way...
OpenDarwin is a fork of Apple's Darwin. Are you saying they should have supported a branch of Darwin other than the one they actually use? If so, when did you stop taking your medication?
They took from many open source projects but returned precious little to the community.
Maybe the community should ask for more than that when they license their code if that's what they want.
This sounds, to me, like they will only support DRM capable formats... Which makes this a non-buy in my opinion.
You should probably look for an actual list of formats instead of jumping to whatever conclusion you want. Like the one in the product sheet that includes : PDF, XHTML, TXT, APABI (China only), OEB, MP3.
The iMac comes with a two button mouse with scroll button. The MacBook still has only a single button. Apple is confused.
No, you are confused. The iMac comes with a one-button mouse that can click two ways depending on where your fingers are. The MacBook comes with a one-button trackpad that can click two ways depending on where your fingers are.
The artist(s) involved in the creation of a work should be guaranteed no less than 50% of the profit from each sale (note profit not cost).
They are already guaranteed 100%. The only way you can get less is by giving/selling away your rights.
Copyright reform is badly needed, but sadly most people just don't care that our musical, artistic, literary, and cinematic heritage is being steadily destroyed.
It probably has something to do with the fact that it is being created at a faster rate.
For two, unfortunately most normal computer users don't understand DRM and how it limits their rights until it's too late.
How is "when they sign up for an account" too late?
Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.
The only thing that relies on consumer ignorance is your argument. You seem to be implying that Apple is keeping the DRM restrictions secret, which they are not.
I hate the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument - if you don't like windows, don't buy it.
Uh, ok. I don't like Windows, so I didn't buy Windows. What's your point?
What part of "Made In China" was unclear? Have people been imagining that iPods were made in some special part of China where labor conditions aren't shitty?
Slashdot Mirror
Put a group of alpha geeks in a room and start a discussion. Inevitably, they spend more time trying to prove to each other who is the smartest than they do actually pushing forward the discussion. Why is that?
They're trying to figure out who is the alpha so that they can know who to defer to. It's extremely difficult to make progress without a degree of deference, and when there is no established rule, competition is the most universal way to decide it. People that identify as geeks are quick to choose knowledge of intricate technical details as the competition. If you've ever had the displeasure of witnessing an unproductive geek argument devolve into physical violence, you'd see that they are largely the same thing.
The solution is to have some more socially acceptable (and hopefully less time-consuming) outlet for that competitive instinct. Depending on the group it could be some complex parliamentary procedure, pistols-at-dawn, or a simple "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
The challenge of this question is coming up with a description of the "problems" of DRM that actually sound like problems to "less-experienced users".
If you tell someone "When you buy from music from iTunes, you'll only be able to play it on all of your computers, all of your iPods, and all of your CD players.", chances are they aren't going to understand just how "obviously" oppressive and stifling that is.
One is open, but if you go through it, someone will punch you in the face.
Since you've strained the analogy this far, I'd might as well posit this addition: A bigass sign outside the room indicating to all of those who
choose to enter (i.e. you) under exactly what circumstances they will be "punched in the face", as it were.
On the other hand, if you're equating lossy re-encoding with being punched in the face, I would suggest a re-evaluation of your priorities.
The two are not comparable. No, really, they aren't.
That's an attractive device, but if it doesn't support Apple's DRM then I can't use legitimately purchased music on it directly.
Um, no. You can use all the legit music you want. It just won't be from iTunes.
So given the choice I'll remove the DRM rather than re-encode the music in a lossy manner...
Good luck finding a non-iPod device that will play even unencrypted AAC. You'd might as well do a lossy conversion. Or better yet, buy music in a format that you actually want to use instead of blaming the seller for not giving it to you for free.
The real question is, why are you so strongly against people making these choices for themselves?
I'm absolutely not against people making these choices. I'm against people spouting bullshit.
What do you mean using the file on an unsupported platform doesn't require breaking DRM?
It's funny: You ask this question and then you immediately answer it for yourself. It's almost as if you've made up your mind to ignore reality in favor of holding a strong opinion on an issue that doesn't actually effect you.
Why should people have to do that?
Let's say you're in a room and trying to get out. On one side of the room is an open door. On the other is a locked door. Assuming you want to get out, which way should you go? For bonus points: Which way would you go if, instead of wanting to get out, you wanted to make rhetorical arguments about being oppressed by evil corporations in order to make yourself feel smart?
Oh, by the way: Since you can't purchase the music on an unsupported platform, why would you need to play it on one? Perhaps because of a certain man, made of straw?
Sooner or later you will either lose your decryption key...
Which you can recover.
or want to use the file on an unsupported platform.
Which doesn't require breaking the DRM.
Low income human: I do not have expendable income, but I want to see this thing. So, I use a P2P client and download it.
Somewhere in there is the option to do without the luxury. That seems to be ignored a lot these days.
If you don't do that (and due to the required effort, most don't) then you don't see all of the information you want even though most of the screen is wasted space!.
Why make the assumption that you always want to see all of the information in all of the windows you have open? Just because a window is visible doesn't mean it is relevant to the current (and ever-changing) task.
Right now I'm typing a comment on Slashdot, but my mail client is open behind this window because I was reading email just a few minutes ago. When I'm done typing this comment, and close this window, I'll be back in my email client. Without the very simple ability to have windows overlap, I would be looking at two completely different and unrelated tasks, which doesn't seem like an improvement.
Today's GUI's all "jump".
All except Mac OS X.
What are you talking about? Jobs probably leaked it himself.
You're absolutely right. Jobs "leaked" more than four thousand copies to WWDC attendees. Of course, that doesn't mean he told them to put it on P2P networks.
Yeah I'm sure. It was "leaked." As in, Apple wants more press so they do what they do with every other release and accidentally get a beta out the door.
Right, because there is no chance in hell that any one of four thousand WWDC attendees could have possibly uploaded a copy on their own. No chance in hell. It must be a secret corporate conspiracy to get buggy, incomplete software in the hands of end users, because that's good for business.
Here's a simpler explanation: anything that can end up on BitTorrent, will end up on BitTorrent.
One "family pack" copy of OS X is purchased, and the remaining 4 licenses are sold off to people on the Internet (who are given an image of the CD.)
"* Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users."
It isn't "five Mac OS X licenses", it's one license for five computers.
I see on the Apple site that I can buy a single OS X license for $129 or a 5-pack family license for $199. The fine print says it is to be used on "Apple-labeled computers". Has anyone tested their willingness to sell to generic x86 owners?
If you look closely you'll see that the boxed version of Mac OS X is for PowerPC only. They don't currently sell the Universal version except with new Macs. And why would they? They've never sold any Intel machines that didn't already come with 10.4.
The miserable Dock is functionally very much like the WIndows 95 taskbar
In what way?
the Finder and OS now handle file extensions about the same way Windows does
This isn't even remotely true. Windows depends on file extensions almost exclusively. Mac OS only uses them in the absence of a Uniform Type Identifier, Type/Creator codes, or MIME type.
The only meat in this story is the specious jurisdiction issue. The fact that the guy is a blogger is irrelevant: anybody can go do jail for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury. Confusing the two issues may give the Blogodrome more to talk about, but it causes the point to be missed.
Think about that. It is easier to make a new one than to actually transfer the old one.
This is true for data, but not for the content, which is the valuable asset is being protected. Four megabytes of random data is not worth as much as four megabytes of data that can be decoded into a song. Why? Because it is more difficult to create a new song than random data.
The problem is that the media giants have decided that they want more than a fair price for their product, so many people look elsewhere to get the things they want.
The fact that you, personally, do not want to pay a particular price does not make it unfair.
I would rather steal the music and send the artist a dollar or two.
What about the producer? What about the recording engineer? What about all of the other people involved in creating the recording that you've just stolen? Do they not deserve to be compensated for their work?
Recently a non-techie friend asked me if his ipod could "talk" to my Zen Mirco:M so he could borrow some music for a few days. I said "sure, they are just mp3s" - she wanted to know how that was possible...that it was so easy to copy and duplicate a file back and forth from my computer to my music device without any hassles...and after our discussion, she was flabbergasted that she had been locked into iTunes and how her rights and freedoms were restricted by its DRM.
Nowhere in this incoherent story have you indicated what the actual "problem" was. On the one hand, you're saying that you were trying to connect an iPod to a Zen. The reason that wouldn't work has nothing to do with DRM. Also, you seem to be implying that you can't play MP3s on an iPod, which isn't true and wouldn't have anything to do with DRM if it was. Or maybe you mean to say that you were trying to copy music from the iPod to your Zen. That wouldn't work even without DRM, because the Zen can't play AAC.
Many other people are waking up to the fact that DRM is shorthand for "you really don't own this piece of music you paid $1 for, and that you can't share it, or copy it, or use it on a different computer."
In the case of iTunes DRM, none of those statements are true.
It is one of font caches. This is a very "stock" system and never used in DTP. I can't imagine DTP people's font caches right now.
Most DTP people would know that if fonts are crashing their system, it's probably because the the font itself is broken. That's why even FontBook comes with a validation capability. If you're having problems, you should validate any fonts you've installed. Clearing the cache might make the problem go away, but only until you re-load the bad font. It is not a fix.
Apple never supported the open source version of darwin in any way...
OpenDarwin is a fork of Apple's Darwin. Are you saying they should have supported a branch of Darwin other than the one they actually use? If so, when did you stop taking your medication?
They took from many open source projects but returned precious little to the community.
Maybe the community should ask for more than that when they license their code if that's what they want.
Sigh, how did READING the bits on your own CDs/DVDs ever become illegal? Freedom of speech implies a freedom to read what you want.
Reading the bits is not illegal. Cracking the encryption without a license is. You can read an encrypted bitstream all day if that's what you want.
This sounds, to me, like they will only support DRM capable formats... Which makes this a non-buy in my opinion.
You should probably look for an actual list of formats instead of jumping to whatever conclusion you want. Like the one in the product sheet that includes : PDF, XHTML, TXT, APABI (China only), OEB, MP3.
This has got to be the first thing I've read on OSnews where I had to scroll down before the first mention of how great BeOS was.
The iMac comes with a two button mouse with scroll button. The MacBook still has only a single button. Apple is confused.
No, you are confused. The iMac comes with a one-button mouse that can click two ways depending on where your fingers are. The MacBook comes with a one-button trackpad that can click two ways depending on where your fingers are.
The artist(s) involved in the creation of a work should be guaranteed no less than 50% of the profit from each sale (note profit not cost).
They are already guaranteed 100%. The only way you can get less is by giving/selling away your rights.
Copyright reform is badly needed, but sadly most people just don't care that our musical, artistic, literary, and cinematic heritage is being steadily destroyed.
It probably has something to do with the fact that it is being created at a faster rate.
For two, unfortunately most normal computer users don't understand DRM and how it limits their rights until it's too late.
How is "when they sign up for an account" too late?
Relying on consumer ignorance to lock them into a DMCA-protected proprietary DRM scheme is unethical and should be illegal.
The only thing that relies on consumer ignorance is your argument. You seem to be implying that Apple is keeping the DRM restrictions secret, which they are not.
I hate the "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument - if you don't like windows, don't buy it.
Uh, ok. I don't like Windows, so I didn't buy Windows. What's your point?
What part of "Made In China" was unclear? Have people been imagining that iPods were made in some special part of China where labor conditions aren't shitty?