Their GPL infringes on my right to: * Copy source code to the project of my choice without attribution. * Re-sell an application I have coded with said code (using second hand code is legal.).
Anyone that gives me back my legal rights, is someone who deserves encouraging.
---
Totally lame, isn't it? I love that everyone is expected to follow the usage restrictions dictated by the GPL, but "ANY DRM IS TOO MUCH DRM!"
What is the GPL other than a plain-text digital rights management scheme? Seriously, I want to know.
Why do we have to treat the music labels like some kind of poor skittish fawn in a petting zoo?
Because for the most part, Slashdotters are the ones crying loudly about the music industry's hesitation to move off of an "obsolete business model" and embrace legal music downloading. For years, I've been reading how this is going to be the future of music listening. Well, it's here now.
I mean, you say they are scared of offering online music because it may be, um, cracked. The big news flash is this: If you buy the CD, it is already "cracked" so to speak. Did they forget about CDs? Should we help the music industry lock down CDs somehow so they don't get so scared they stop selling us music all together?
The music industry is desperately trying to stick copy protection on CDs and prosecute those who distribute copyright-infringed material on the Internet. Future music on DVD-Audio will have built-in protections. I don't know about you, but I don't give a hoot either way about such physical formats--online digital music is the inevitable future, and I don't see why anyone would want to hurt that. If you don't like the pretty liberal DRM of iTunes, don't buy the music of iTunes. It took a lot of work to even get the labels to cooperate with Apple to start with. By doing this, you're ENSURING that they'll just run back to copy-protected CDs forever. If anyone remembers the Velvet Revolver CD, it actually installs a Windows CD driver that corrupts digital reading of the disc when it detects Velvet Revolver's CD. Personally, I'd rather stick with Apple's lax DRM digital music than corruptive CDs.
I want online music to succeed. I couldn't care less about the bragging rights of some hackers. It seems online music just can't win.
Yes. That's exactly the message being send to record labels regarding online music. It "doesn't work."
Look, I get the argument against DRM. But for Christ's sake, iTunes' DRM policy has to be one of the most lax there is to start with. I can just recreate my playlist at any time to have infinite burning. I really don't see what the problem here is, but I accept that there are those who will disagree with me here. I just really think people need to consider the repercussions of things like this, because they are big.
If you don't like the DRM, be a grownup and don't buy the songs. Get them from somewhere else. You're ruining it for the rest of us!
Let's do all we can to make legal online music downloading look like a shaky, invalid alternative to CD-buying, so we can ensure that record labels never change and embrace the new model. After all, we can't just NOT BUY THE SONGS if we don't like the DRM, right?
Every time this gets cracked, it hurts online legal music. The labels are already paranoid as it is, and this is exactly why. They know these kinds of people are out there waiting to crack it all. You're only hurting the iTunes music store and the business model as a whole.
Geeks, nerds, come together...Beakman and Bill Nye were both cool science shows only we dorks watched while everyone else played with their Power Rangers.
I'm an experience system builder, so this article is intriguing. However, I feel he does things the long way or is unaware of better ways to do things when building custom advanced systems. For instance, when I'm building a new freelance gig for use at home, I typically click the drop-down list make sure to select exactly what is going into my custom rig. Or if there are multiple color options available (like when I'm rigging up a new custom-built MP3 player), I will click the drop-down list and select which one I want. Sometimes I might even want to put my mark on the thing and type in a custom message to be engraved on the back, just to remind people of the customization work I put into it.
I'm also curious about the PCI slot positioning part of the article, as my custom-built rigs skip that step entirely. Why bother? Often, I store my parts directly in the monitor itself or even without a monitor so I can hook the box up to anything. Then I might carefully select those drop-down lists to hot-rod the box to my liking and really custom-build an advanced freelance system by upping RAM or processor speed via careful direction of the mouse cursor when selecting drop-down lists. My system-building buddy down the street doesn't even bother with upping the RAM via the drop-down lists and just uses a putty knife to up the RAM with a custom-bought chip of his own liking, but that's getting into levels of extraneous advanced system-building that I don't have time for.
I hope my experience in advanced system building is helpful for you all. If you want to read more about my advanced system building skills, I suggest you check this out and take notes.
This time, I'm not even planning to read TFA. Scanning over it, Bill Gates loves to bloviate about nothing. If you saw the CES2005 video, he just sits there talking about photos and communication over and over again, like they're something new. He sounds like an old out-of-touch businessman trying hard to sound in touch by mentioning "digital lifestyle" over and over so the PHBs can think he's a visionary. Contrast to someone like Steve Jobs at Macworld who personally demos his company's products to applause instead of talking about digital photos and digital music like they're something new.
Anyone remember Gates' book from the mid-90s about the future of computing that didn't mention the word "Internet" once? It was later amended to add a chapter that mentioned it. Bill Gates didn't even see the Internet coming.
Gates is simply not a proven visionary in this department. A ringing endorsement that the PC is not dead pretty much signals to me that it just might be.
So, you're saying Apple is standing there with a gun to your head, "forcing" DRM on you?
Oh, you mean you're choosing to purchase the music from iTunes and THEN complaining about the DRM after the fact? For a second, I thought you had something legitimate to say...
And before you bust out those "paranoia" modifiers, really think about Avalon. It delivers rich client support through the web. Microsoft is trying to leverage.NET and Avalon to eventually fully replace client-side Win32 with a web-based delivery platform. You'll use Office as a subscription-based service through the web, delivered through the web into your Longhorn browser and run as a rich client. None of it will happen immediately, but it's the inevitable process they're headed on, and you can see it coming a mile away. Microsoft is tired of fighting with this open, standards-based web thing and is creating their own software platform using the web, so they don't have to worry about the Internet anymore once everything goes to high-speed Internet2 where app delivery would happen in less than a second.
In Longhorn, web sites can present a fully rich client to browsers through Avalon.
Microsoft has always been a software company. And they may put out operating systems and be most-known for Windows, but really their goal is just to control software platforms. The reason they sell the X-Box at a loss is to push the DirectNext platform. They sell Windows, no matter how insecure, just to push their APIs.
Avalon and its related technologies are Microsoft's long-planned attempt to finally gain control of this Internet thing as its own software platform. It's the final fulfilment of the process that started way back with IE4, when Microsoft decided to do anything and everything to get rid of Netscape and prevent the Web from becoming its own software platform. Microsoft ignores web standards because that takes the control of the platform away from them. Right now, if you run a major website, you code for IE hacks and all and hope it works for "fringe" browsers.
Web developers will need to do absolutely everything they can and speak very LOUDLY to prevent the Web from becoming closed. Fortunately, it appears that Longhorn will not be as successful as it was hyped in previous years, but the fact Microsoft is porting a lot of Longhorn's technologies to XP just to get people to use it all is something to keep an eye on, as is the sudden announcement of a new version of IE7 which will no doubt take advantage of Avalon.
And yet, it's selling. If something pointless falls in a forest and everyone around gets the point, does it no longer have orange sport cases available?
Well, hey, "Reality Master" says so. I think I'll trust "Reality Master" over Forbes Magazine. I'll add it to my list of predictions over the years.
"Not gonna happen." -- Reality Master on Apple market share increases "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." -- Rob Malda on day of iPod launch in 2001
True Crime: Streets of LA Star Wars: Battlefront Medal of Honor WarChest Worms 3D Rise of Nations: Gold Edition Halo Call of Duty World of Warcraft Tron 2 Unreal2K4 Rainbow Six 3 Battlefield 1942 Deluxe Edition LOTR Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
I didn't get a Mac because of the iPod either. It was the $599 Mac mini that got me. I already had the keyboard, mouse, and display from my Windows box. It was an easy decision to make.
I notice that this article mentions that the Mac mini was released too soon to have a sales impact. It will be very interesting to see how much it has an effect.
Can you point to any important research publications by Apple researchers in the last few years? I haven't seen any.
Can you point to any important research publications by Microsoft researchers?
Obviously, I'm talking products and operating system design here. Apple has already kicked out a database-indexed filesystem daemon, while Microsoft has been trying to get one off the ground for ten years and is still putting it off. Apple went from having nothing to being one of the hottest companies out there right now. They have the music player market cornered, and keep putting out very well-designed and beautiful hardware. All I'm saying is, expect even more.
Well, name a game on the PC you don't have available on the Mac. I mean, all the big-name titles are there for the Mac, and to be honest, I don't really play much else except for those. The rest of my gaming is on a console.
Quake 3 Doom 3 Black & White The Sims The Sims 2 SimCity 4 All the Myst games All the Warcraft games All the Diablo games RTCW All the Unreal Tournaments
I could go on and on here. Not to mention, I use emulators anyway, so there are all those games too.
More marketshare means more income to spend on R&D. With what Apple puts out already, I can only imagine what they'll start putting out with more marketshare (compare to Microsoft's $10 billion a year R&D, and all they can put out are picture-viewing smartphones and media center TVs). At some point, there's a threshold where growth begins to fuel itself through momentum (maybe ~10% or so). With Longhorn not due out until 2006, Apple has the opportunity to grow a few more points next year as well.
Actually, it's pretty easy to say those two things consecutively. One has to do with using copyright to protect profits versus people taking copyrighted material for personal use, while the other has to do with using copyright to protect people's right to personal use against a company taking the source code, changing it in non-public ways, and selling it for a profit. A lot of people see those as being very different arguments. In fact, they are basically diametrically opposite uses of copyright.
How is using someone's GPL code not "taking copyrighted material for personal use"? In either case, infringement of a copyright usage license is occuring. The double-standard occurs when someone is opposed to only one of these situations but supports the other. If you're going to use copyright to defend your GPL code, then you really have little choice but to respect the use of copyright to defend media content as well. Otherwise, you're only respecting copyright half of the time which doesn't say much for the integrity and legality of the GPL. The GPL is dependent on copyright to exist.
1.) Copyright infringement on P2P networks is okay. It's not theft. 2.) Copyright infringement of GPL source code is not okay. It's theft.
Just repeating that the GPL improves freedom isn't really saying anything other than RMS propaganda. There are real issues here revolving around the usage restrictions of intellectual property. If the discussion is to ever go anywhere, there needs to be a rational starting point.
Slashdot Mirror
Their GPL infringes on my right to:
* Copy source code to the project of my choice without attribution.
* Re-sell an application I have coded with said code (using second hand code is legal.).
Anyone that gives me back my legal rights, is someone who deserves encouraging.
---
Totally lame, isn't it? I love that everyone is expected to follow the usage restrictions dictated by the GPL, but "ANY DRM IS TOO MUCH DRM!"
What is the GPL other than a plain-text digital rights management scheme? Seriously, I want to know.
Because for the most part, Slashdotters are the ones crying loudly about the music industry's hesitation to move off of an "obsolete business model" and embrace legal music downloading. For years, I've been reading how this is going to be the future of music listening. Well, it's here now.
The music industry is desperately trying to stick copy protection on CDs and prosecute those who distribute copyright-infringed material on the Internet. Future music on DVD-Audio will have built-in protections. I don't know about you, but I don't give a hoot either way about such physical formats--online digital music is the inevitable future, and I don't see why anyone would want to hurt that. If you don't like the pretty liberal DRM of iTunes, don't buy the music of iTunes. It took a lot of work to even get the labels to cooperate with Apple to start with. By doing this, you're ENSURING that they'll just run back to copy-protected CDs forever. If anyone remembers the Velvet Revolver CD, it actually installs a Windows CD driver that corrupts digital reading of the disc when it detects Velvet Revolver's CD. Personally, I'd rather stick with Apple's lax DRM digital music than corruptive CDs.
I want online music to succeed. I couldn't care less about the bragging rights of some hackers. It seems online music just can't win.
Yes. That's exactly the message being send to record labels regarding online music. It "doesn't work."
Look, I get the argument against DRM. But for Christ's sake, iTunes' DRM policy has to be one of the most lax there is to start with. I can just recreate my playlist at any time to have infinite burning. I really don't see what the problem here is, but I accept that there are those who will disagree with me here. I just really think people need to consider the repercussions of things like this, because they are big.
If you don't like the DRM, be a grownup and don't buy the songs. Get them from somewhere else. You're ruining it for the rest of us!
Let's do all we can to make legal online music downloading look like a shaky, invalid alternative to CD-buying, so we can ensure that record labels never change and embrace the new model. After all, we can't just NOT BUY THE SONGS if we don't like the DRM, right?
Every time this gets cracked, it hurts online legal music. The labels are already paranoid as it is, and this is exactly why. They know these kinds of people are out there waiting to crack it all. You're only hurting the iTunes music store and the business model as a whole.
Geeks, nerds, come together...Beakman and Bill Nye were both cool science shows only we dorks watched while everyone else played with their Power Rangers.
I'm an experience system builder, so this article is intriguing. However, I feel he does things the long way or is unaware of better ways to do things when building custom advanced systems. For instance, when I'm building a new freelance gig for use at home, I typically click the drop-down list make sure to select exactly what is going into my custom rig. Or if there are multiple color options available (like when I'm rigging up a new custom-built MP3 player), I will click the drop-down list and select which one I want. Sometimes I might even want to put my mark on the thing and type in a custom message to be engraved on the back, just to remind people of the customization work I put into it.
I'm also curious about the PCI slot positioning part of the article, as my custom-built rigs skip that step entirely. Why bother? Often, I store my parts directly in the monitor itself or even without a monitor so I can hook the box up to anything. Then I might carefully select those drop-down lists to hot-rod the box to my liking and really custom-build an advanced freelance system by upping RAM or processor speed via careful direction of the mouse cursor when selecting drop-down lists. My system-building buddy down the street doesn't even bother with upping the RAM via the drop-down lists and just uses a putty knife to up the RAM with a custom-bought chip of his own liking, but that's getting into levels of extraneous advanced system-building that I don't have time for.
I hope my experience in advanced system building is helpful for you all. If you want to read more about my advanced system building skills, I suggest you check this out and take notes.
This time, I'm not even planning to read TFA. Scanning over it, Bill Gates loves to bloviate about nothing. If you saw the CES2005 video, he just sits there talking about photos and communication over and over again, like they're something new. He sounds like an old out-of-touch businessman trying hard to sound in touch by mentioning "digital lifestyle" over and over so the PHBs can think he's a visionary. Contrast to someone like Steve Jobs at Macworld who personally demos his company's products to applause instead of talking about digital photos and digital music like they're something new.
Anyone remember Gates' book from the mid-90s about the future of computing that didn't mention the word "Internet" once? It was later amended to add a chapter that mentioned it. Bill Gates didn't even see the Internet coming.
Gates is simply not a proven visionary in this department. A ringing endorsement that the PC is not dead pretty much signals to me that it just might be.
Steve Jobs is CEO, and no way shareholders would want him leaving.
Jobs has said that "Pixar is the most technically creative company, while Apple is the most creatively technical company."
So, you're saying Apple is standing there with a gun to your head, "forcing" DRM on you?
Oh, you mean you're choosing to purchase the music from iTunes and THEN complaining about the DRM after the fact? For a second, I thought you had something legitimate to say...
And before you bust out those "paranoia" modifiers, really think about Avalon. It delivers rich client support through the web. Microsoft is trying to leverage .NET and Avalon to eventually fully replace client-side Win32 with a web-based delivery platform. You'll use Office as a subscription-based service through the web, delivered through the web into your Longhorn browser and run as a rich client. None of it will happen immediately, but it's the inevitable process they're headed on, and you can see it coming a mile away. Microsoft is tired of fighting with this open, standards-based web thing and is creating their own software platform using the web, so they don't have to worry about the Internet anymore once everything goes to high-speed Internet2 where app delivery would happen in less than a second.
Any word on the progress to fix these? It's not just Firefox; I get them in both Safari and Opera as well. Haven't tried IE.
Microsoft has always been a software company. And they may put out operating systems and be most-known for Windows, but really their goal is just to control software platforms. The reason they sell the X-Box at a loss is to push the DirectNext platform. They sell Windows, no matter how insecure, just to push their APIs.
Avalon and its related technologies are Microsoft's long-planned attempt to finally gain control of this Internet thing as its own software platform. It's the final fulfilment of the process that started way back with IE4, when Microsoft decided to do anything and everything to get rid of Netscape and prevent the Web from becoming its own software platform. Microsoft ignores web standards because that takes the control of the platform away from them. Right now, if you run a major website, you code for IE hacks and all and hope it works for "fringe" browsers.
Web developers will need to do absolutely everything they can and speak very LOUDLY to prevent the Web from becoming closed. Fortunately, it appears that Longhorn will not be as successful as it was hyped in previous years, but the fact Microsoft is porting a lot of Longhorn's technologies to XP just to get people to use it all is something to keep an eye on, as is the sudden announcement of a new version of IE7 which will no doubt take advantage of Avalon.
And yet, it's selling. If something pointless falls in a forest and everyone around gets the point, does it no longer have orange sport cases available?
You could load some MP3 playing software on one of these and have one of the most pointless music players ever.
Aqua is the GUI. The operating system beneath it is Darwin and is open source. There is an x86 port here.
Well, hey, "Reality Master" says so. I think I'll trust "Reality Master" over Forbes Magazine. I'll add it to my list of predictions over the years.
"Not gonna happen." -- Reality Master on Apple market share increases
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." -- Rob Malda on day of iPod launch in 2001
True Crime: Streets of LA
Star Wars: Battlefront
Medal of Honor WarChest
Worms 3D
Rise of Nations: Gold Edition
Halo
Call of Duty
World of Warcraft
Tron 2
Unreal2K4
Rainbow Six 3
Battlefield 1942 Deluxe Edition
LOTR
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Again. I could go on and on...
I didn't get a Mac because of the iPod either. It was the $599 Mac mini that got me. I already had the keyboard, mouse, and display from my Windows box. It was an easy decision to make.
I notice that this article mentions that the Mac mini was released too soon to have a sales impact. It will be very interesting to see how much it has an effect.
Can you point to any important research publications by Apple researchers in the last few years? I haven't seen any.
Can you point to any important research publications by Microsoft researchers?
Obviously, I'm talking products and operating system design here. Apple has already kicked out a database-indexed filesystem daemon, while Microsoft has been trying to get one off the ground for ten years and is still putting it off. Apple went from having nothing to being one of the hottest companies out there right now. They have the music player market cornered, and keep putting out very well-designed and beautiful hardware. All I'm saying is, expect even more.
Well, name a game on the PC you don't have available on the Mac. I mean, all the big-name titles are there for the Mac, and to be honest, I don't really play much else except for those. The rest of my gaming is on a console.
No games, huh?
Quake 3
Doom 3
Black & White
The Sims
The Sims 2
SimCity 4
All the Myst games
All the Warcraft games
All the Diablo games
RTCW
All the Unreal Tournaments
I could go on and on here. Not to mention, I use emulators anyway, so there are all those games too.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
Next.
More marketshare means more income to spend on R&D. With what Apple puts out already, I can only imagine what they'll start putting out with more marketshare (compare to Microsoft's $10 billion a year R&D, and all they can put out are picture-viewing smartphones and media center TVs). At some point, there's a threshold where growth begins to fuel itself through momentum (maybe ~10% or so). With Longhorn not due out until 2006, Apple has the opportunity to grow a few more points next year as well.
How is using someone's GPL code not "taking copyrighted material for personal use"? In either case, infringement of a copyright usage license is occuring. The double-standard occurs when someone is opposed to only one of these situations but supports the other. If you're going to use copyright to defend your GPL code, then you really have little choice but to respect the use of copyright to defend media content as well. Otherwise, you're only respecting copyright half of the time which doesn't say much for the integrity and legality of the GPL. The GPL is dependent on copyright to exist.
You don't see a contradiction here?
1.) Copyright infringement on P2P networks is okay. It's not theft.
2.) Copyright infringement of GPL source code is not okay. It's theft.
Just repeating that the GPL improves freedom isn't really saying anything other than RMS propaganda. There are real issues here revolving around the usage restrictions of intellectual property. If the discussion is to ever go anywhere, there needs to be a rational starting point.