Hardly real. I was attempting to use it at one stage, it never ever worked. The client was buggy, killed Windows 95, it was expensive, securing content was a pain, and then, instead of trying to fix those problems they switched to "securing" email.
They couldn't get their software to work, so now they've fallen back to enforcing patents. Or, expensive software that doesn't work, yup Microsoft is trying to do that too sometimes...
Re:moving towards bloatware or are these important
on
C# 2.0 Spec Released
·
· Score: 1
Yup. Java does this. It is called "deprecated".
As does.net, for example the switch from 1.0 to 1.1 changed XSL transforms, so using one of the old 1.0 methods would give
'System.Xml.Xsl.XslTransform.Transform(System.Xml. XPath.IXPathNavigable, System.Xml.Xsl.XsltArgumentList, System.IO.TextWriter)' is obsolete: 'You should pass XmlResolver to Transform() method'
It means you cannot produce your own music, take your own payments and release it in a protected ACC suitable for the iPod.
Not every label wants to license to Apple, or Napster for that matter. I'm in the situation where the music owner wants to license directly, take their own payments, control their own music, something FairPlay does not let them do.
You cannot package music in a secure format, and sell it for the iPod
I've looked into it on behalf of one label, who want to sell in Europe, and have their content available to both PC and Mac users. They would be quite happy to have it in two formats. WMA and AAC, with Fairplay, but Apple just won't share. So, WMA only it is.
And when the music becomes available, iPod users will post and whinge and blame their lack of support on Microsoft, and Apple, who refuse to open up iTunes.
Let me qualify that, FairPlay is closed. Apple won't share the specs. You cannot package music in a format, and sell it for the iPod unless you deal with Apple. Microsoft is a lot more open, you can download the WM DRM SDK for the cost of a code signing certificate. The documentation is freely available on MSDN. You don't have to sell your music through a Microsoft branded store, obey Microsoft pricing and use Microsoft rules. With Apple you do.
This is a major drawback from the content owners point of view (I've had this discussion with a few of my customers, record labels). They don't want a middle man, they don't want a slice taken out of the profit, they want to sell direct, to a majority of users, safely (from their point of view). I can't do that with FairPlay. You may well argue that's MPG4/AAC, that's a standard and it's open. The DRM isn't, and for me that's what counts.
You can restrict the formats, but it's not the default. The default is play everywhere, on every thing. You have to apply and return a license to get the DRM stuff, and even after that it's just an SDK, you have to write code to implement it onto your media. As for not being able to move, that's not part of the Microsoft DRM rules, I have no idea what's going on there.
(I spend all day working with DRM systems, I actually like the MS one because of it's flexibility. Real's system is awful, it's expensive, and only exposes hooks, you have to write your own DRM on top of that. Can't find anything out about Apples, they refuse to talk to third parties, even if I use my customers' names as a lever).
And this differs from Apple how? Their DRM addition to AAC is limited to the Mac (at least for a while, we'll see if they release a decent version under windows).
the inherent restrictions built into the wma format
There's no restrictions built into WMA (aside from the lack of source/format documentation). Just like there's no restrictions built into AAC. Apple, like Microsoft, have built DRM on top of their formats, but unlike Apple, Microsoft are providing the SDK for DRM freely. If you examine the options available with the SDK you can make the rules as loose as you like, more "free" than iTunes have, it's just no-one seems to want to do this.
I think these would be well-suited for identifying resources across multiple distribution networks, like the standard HTTP web, Freenet, bittorrent, file-sharing networks, etc., as well as making mirroring and distribution of load much easier.
Well, internally in the music world there is a standard ID for every music track. Interesting that this could provide a globally unique identifier for anything.
Yes (well, I've managed to get them to pull a Windows 2000 QuickFix from windows update in 24 hours via some urgent emails pointing out they'd packaged NT4 DLLs inside it.
NT 4.0's SP6 was quickly updated to SP6a when it was discovered it interferred with Notes.
(Nominet should have got into trouble because (a) they unilaterally changed their terms and conditions, leaving people with a choice of publishing their home address, or losing their domain name
You're very out of date. The nominet T&Cs conditions did at one stage talk about releasing everyone's address, business or personal, however you will notice now that when registered or updating your *.uk domains you have the option to mark yourself as an individual and so stop your details being released to whois look ups
From 1 December addresses will be published for all new registrations and existing domain names as they are renewed thereafter, unless the opt-out for non-trading individuals is activated by the registrant via their ISP or registration agent. This will apply irrespective of which Second Level Domain (including.co.uk, where the majority of.uk domain names are registered) the domain name falls under.
Re:This goes back to the early days of Apple
on
Beatles Bite Apple
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I belive Micheal Jackson controls all the beatles works
Whacko had the rights to most of the lyrics a while back, but sold them to Sony.
The way music licensing works is generally as follows
The tune / lyrics belong to whoever wrote them, and these are licensed to a specific publisher. Note that this may not be the label, it can be a seperate company, or in some cases, a part of a company (for example EMI have EMI publishing which licenses tunes and lyrics)
The record label in turn owns the rights to a particular recording of that music, be it a studio track, or a live track.
So whilst Sony own the rights to the beatles lyrics, EMI (through Apple Music) own the rights to recordings of those things.
And that's the simple version, it gets very very messy very quickly when band swap labels, perform live or the song writer moves between publishers.
It varies, depending on if the IP blocks are SWIPed or not, arin/ripe/apnic updates and so on
Generally it's easier to trust other people and use their lists, for example CIHost (the spamming scum who send emails to role addresses spamming their service, then complain when they get blocked) blocks are listed at http://blackholes.us, as are some countries.
Forcing compliance" to a monopoly introduced technical specification
Are you seriously trying to say that Microsoft has a monopoly on instant messaging? That would come as a shock to AIM and ICQ users.
Nor does anywhere say Microsoft will charge for the licenses. They do give away licensed SDKs for free (the numerous Windows Media SDKs spring to mind).
Well if they match the ads in the DivX Pro download to the most popular DivX content that will be a lot of "Increase your penis now" ads being shown...
But this isn't Microsoft's clout. It's a third party service, which OD2 are reselling to companies (well 2 companies right now). OD2 bought the rights (by giving away their company to the labels).
isn't restricted by Microsoft's definition of 'reasonable use'.
But the rules aren't being set by Microsoft, or by OD2 who provide the service. The rules and rights are being set by the individual record labels. EMI have different rules from Universal who appear to allow different things to Time Warner.
Oh good grief. It appears that hoping someone on slashdot would go look at the service before commenting was just too much.
Fans can copy tracks (from one directory to another on the same computer)
You can copy it all you like, to backup devices, remote servers, your mothers PC whatever. But if you don't have a license, you can't play it. It appears to allow license recovery and downloading recovery as well, but the labels set those rules.
from one directory to another on the same computer in WM9 format with DRM
Afraid not anonymous FUD boy. You can burn them as CD audio tracks (and then, of course, re-
rip them)
transfer them to other devices
That seems to be a label restriction. EMI allow 3 transfers to any SDMI compatible device, Universal doesn't. Oh, and they're not even using WM9, it's WM7.
as much as they want "within reason" meaning simply that you can and will be prosecuted
Of course you will, because with every download, a microsoft employee is asigned to you for life and will watch every move you make, just to make sure you don't even hum the tunes and share them with others.
Then you didn't read the link. They're there, in the same parts of the committee structure as Oracle. But you didn't seriously expect Microsoft to get listed on a slashdot article did you? Turn in your userID to Timothy please.
But that's only true for the big projects, like apache or maybe mozilla. Even for middle sized projects I'd dispute the thousands. Maybe a couple of hundred, but even that is probably stretching it. Even then most of those coders are concentrating on their own area, be it error codes, how to open a socket, etc, and in all probability, 1-5 people are looking at that area of code (the Linux kernel is probably a prime example of this). There are very few people looking at how the complete product integrates.
Simply because people can look and work at the code doesn't mean they will.
This is, of course, a gut feeling rather than based on imperical evidence
"The alternatives are to laboriously test software or meticulously review source code line by line. But these options are so time consuming and expensive that few companies will do it." (emphasis added)
So how exactly, as the article submitter says will this "help end the debate of closed source or open source applications being more or less secure"? The product page already says that few companies have the time or money to check source code, and how many others do? Sure, it's great to have the source, but when you install apache do you check every single line for buffer offerflows? Of course not. You rely on others doing it, and you rely on others doing it correctly. That may well be a mistake, are you sure someone else will check every revision line by line?
So, frankly, this product contributes nothing to open or closed source arguements, it's simply a nice tool to automate some reviews.
(as an aside, it appears that bugscaninc have made their choice over open and closed source,
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly real. I was attempting to use it at one stage, it never ever worked. The client was buggy, killed Windows 95, it was expensive, securing content was a pain, and then, instead of trying to fix those problems they switched to "securing" email.
They couldn't get their software to work, so now they've fallen back to enforcing patents. Or, expensive software that doesn't work, yup Microsoft is trying to do that too sometimes...
Yup. Java does this. It is called "deprecated".
As does .net, for example the switch from 1.0 to 1.1 changed XSL transforms, so using one of the old 1.0 methods would give
It means you cannot produce your own music, take your own payments and release it in a protected ACC suitable for the iPod.
Not every label wants to license to Apple, or Napster for that matter. I'm in the situation where the music owner wants to license directly, take their own payments, control their own music, something FairPlay does not let them do.
My bad, I must have typed too fast.
You cannot package music in a secure format, and sell it for the iPod
I've looked into it on behalf of one label, who want to sell in Europe, and have their content available to both PC and Mac users. They would be quite happy to have it in two formats. WMA and AAC, with Fairplay, but Apple just won't share. So, WMA only it is.
And when the music becomes available, iPod users will post and whinge and blame their lack of support on Microsoft, and Apple, who refuse to open up iTunes.
The WM DRM SDK is free, if you already have a code signing cert. No licensing cost, no distribution cost, no cost per track.
But iTunes is more closed than WMA.
Let me qualify that, FairPlay is closed. Apple won't share the specs. You cannot package music in a format, and sell it for the iPod unless you deal with Apple. Microsoft is a lot more open, you can download the WM DRM SDK for the cost of a code signing certificate. The documentation is freely available on MSDN. You don't have to sell your music through a Microsoft branded store, obey Microsoft pricing and use Microsoft rules. With Apple you do.
This is a major drawback from the content owners point of view (I've had this discussion with a few of my customers, record labels). They don't want a middle man, they don't want a slice taken out of the profit, they want to sell direct, to a majority of users, safely (from their point of view). I can't do that with FairPlay. You may well argue that's MPG4/AAC, that's a standard and it's open. The DRM isn't, and for me that's what counts.
You can restrict the formats, but it's not the default. The default is play everywhere, on every thing. You have to apply and return a license to get the DRM stuff, and even after that it's just an SDK, you have to write code to implement it onto your media. As for not being able to move, that's not part of the Microsoft DRM rules, I have no idea what's going on there.
(I spend all day working with DRM systems, I actually like the MS one because of it's flexibility. Real's system is awful, it's expensive, and only exposes hooks, you have to write your own DRM on top of that. Can't find anything out about Apples, they refuse to talk to third parties, even if I use my customers' names as a lever).
And this differs from Apple how? Their DRM addition to AAC is limited to the Mac (at least for a while, we'll see if they release a decent version under windows).
There's no restrictions built into WMA (aside from the lack of source/format documentation). Just like there's no restrictions built into AAC. Apple, like Microsoft, have built DRM on top of their formats, but unlike Apple, Microsoft are providing the SDK for DRM freely. If you examine the options available with the SDK you can make the rules as loose as you like, more "free" than iTunes have, it's just no-one seems to want to do this.
Is accuracy too much to ask for?
Whats next? "This page left intentionally blank" in help files?
Well, internally in the music world there is a standard ID for every music track. Interesting that this could provide a globally unique identifier for anything.
However info:/rfid/ is a little worrying ...
did ms ever do that with a service pack
Yes (well, I've managed to get them to pull a Windows 2000 QuickFix from windows update in 24 hours via some urgent emails pointing out they'd packaged NT4 DLLs inside it.
NT 4.0's SP6 was quickly updated to SP6a when it was discovered it interferred with Notes.
You're very out of date. The nominet T&Cs conditions did at one stage talk about releasing everyone's address, business or personal, however you will notice now that when registered or updating your *.uk domains you have the option to mark yourself as an individual and so stop your details being released to whois look ups
A Nominet press release has the details
From 1 December addresses will be published for all new registrations and existing domain names as they are renewed thereafter, unless the opt-out for non-trading individuals is activated by the registrant via their ISP or registration agent. This will apply irrespective of which Second Level Domain (including .co.uk, where the majority of .uk domain names are registered) the domain name falls under.
Whacko had the rights to most of the lyrics a while back, but sold them to Sony.
The way music licensing works is generally as follows
The tune / lyrics belong to whoever wrote them, and these are licensed to a specific publisher. Note that this may not be the label, it can be a seperate company, or in some cases, a part of a company (for example EMI have EMI publishing which licenses tunes and lyrics)
The record label in turn owns the rights to a particular recording of that music, be it a studio track, or a live track.
So whilst Sony own the rights to the beatles lyrics, EMI (through Apple Music) own the rights to recordings of those things.
And that's the simple version, it gets very very messy very quickly when band swap labels, perform live or the song writer moves between publishers.
E-mail? Wasn't everyone reading his blog then? <g>
Well there would be one advantage, no more plugins means no more flash.
*contented sigh* No more navigation bars, adverts with sound, splash screens
(Note the W3C meeting was hosted by Macromedia, who probably have more to lose than anyone else)
Generally it's easier to trust other people and use their lists, for example CIHost (the spamming scum who send emails to role addresses spamming their service, then complain when they get blocked) blocks are listed at http://blackholes.us, as are some countries.
Are you seriously trying to say that Microsoft has a monopoly on instant messaging? That would come as a shock to AIM and ICQ users.
Nor does anywhere say Microsoft will charge for the licenses. They do give away licensed SDKs for free (the numerous Windows Media SDKs spring to mind).
Well if they match the ads in the DivX Pro download to the most popular DivX content that will be a lot of "Increase your penis now" ads being shown ...
But this isn't Microsoft's clout. It's a third party service, which OD2 are reselling to companies (well 2 companies right now). OD2 bought the rights (by giving away their company to the labels).
But the rules aren't being set by Microsoft, or by OD2 who provide the service. The rules and rights are being set by the individual record labels. EMI have different rules from Universal who appear to allow different things to Time Warner.
Fans can copy tracks (from one directory to another on the same computer)
You can copy it all you like, to backup devices, remote servers, your mothers PC whatever. But if you don't have a license, you can't play it. It appears to allow license recovery and downloading recovery as well, but the labels set those rules.
from one directory to another on the same computer in WM9 format with DRM
Afraid not anonymous FUD boy. You can burn them as CD audio tracks (and then, of course, re- rip them)
transfer them to other devices
That seems to be a label restriction. EMI allow 3 transfers to any SDMI compatible device, Universal doesn't. Oh, and they're not even using WM9, it's WM7.
as much as they want "within reason" meaning simply that you can and will be prosecuted
Of course you will, because with every download, a microsoft employee is asigned to you for life and will watch every move you make, just to make sure you don't even hum the tunes and share them with others.
Then you didn't read the link. They're there, in the same parts of the committee structure as Oracle. But you didn't seriously expect Microsoft to get listed on a slashdot article did you? Turn in your userID to Timothy please.
Simply because people can look and work at the code doesn't mean they will.
This is, of course, a gut feeling rather than based on imperical evidence
Lets look at the quote on the web page, shall we?
"The alternatives are to laboriously test software or meticulously review source code line by line. But these options are so time consuming and expensive that few companies will do it." (emphasis added)
So how exactly, as the article submitter says will this "help end the debate of closed source or open source applications being more or less secure"? The product page already says that few companies have the time or money to check source code, and how many others do? Sure, it's great to have the source, but when you install apache do you check every single line for buffer offerflows? Of course not. You rely on others doing it, and you rely on others doing it correctly. That may well be a mistake, are you sure someone else will check every revision line by line?
So, frankly, this product contributes nothing to open or closed source arguements, it's simply a nice tool to automate some reviews.
(as an aside, it appears that bugscaninc have made their choice over open and closed source,
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET