It doesn't matter if the gunman was aiming for you or not, if the bullet hits you, you're still dead.
In America, if a police officer accidentally shoots a hostage they're not liable. If what Blizzard does benefits the whole, the "collateral damage" (hard to call it that when it probably represents less than 0.1% of the userbase) is justified.
Allowing warez'd clients to play was a side effect.
You say side effect; many others felt it was the only draw. If I recall correctly, the bnetd forums were chock full of people talking about how to strip the DRM off the game disks, hacks, etc. A few might have felt it was a "better" experience -- most were trying to play the games without buying them.
Personally, I never understood the allure of bnetd. The games are like $10 in stores right now. Battle.net is probably up 99.9% of the time and is completely free.
As for the whole affair... It's Blizzard. They've apparently got a singular attitude about Linux users that started with the period around Starcraft forward. I wouldn't buy any title from them right now and for some while to come- you just don't treat customers or potential customers the way they seem wont to do.
What you just said would make sense if they weren't RUNNING WOW ON LINUX SERVERS. Their database environment has been Oracle on Linux since the game was released.
Blizzard has nothing against Linux users. Their main beef is with cheaters, and I'm sure these accounts will be reenabled. But some Linux users (incorrectly) jump to conclusions that they're being targeted.
Their previous beef was about bnetd allowing people to play online without buying games. They could care less if people played the game on Linux, they just wanted to make sure people went through official servers and paid to play the game. Again, some Linux users jump to conclusions that Blizzard was targeting the Linux userbase in general.
Poor assumptions make poor arguments. Incorrect assumptions make faulty ones. If you're assuming Blizzard hates Linux or Linux users, you're incorrect. They wouldn't be using the OS themselves if that was the case.
Recently I purchased a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo. For all intents and purposes it's an excellent machine. Runs a little warm, but works well. It's replacing a Dell Inspiron that decided to commit suicide.
So anyway, first day I crack open the box, dig into System Preferences and play with the settings. I go into the Display panel, which has perhaps the weirdest slider widget in the history of all operating systems. Basically, you set the brightness then (if you decide to let it) the MacBook Pro uses an ambient light sensor to raise and lower that brightness based on the lighting in the room. It's a neat feature, but if you set the brightness too high (or too low) it doesn't really work.
So I play around with it a bit and save. Too bright. I reopen the preference pane and decide I want to set it to the default base brightness. No "Reset to default" button. Hmm. Maybe there is no default. So, I create a new account, log into it and open up the Display preferences. Ok, it has a default brightness setting. So where's it stored? I start digging around through plists trying to find the one that controls the Display pane. Nothing.
Finally, I call up Apple support and say "Hey, I want to reset this thing back to the default value. Do you know what plist I'd need to delete to do that?" Their answer: "Sorry sir, that's privileged information about the operating system." Huh? It's just a plist -- I'm not talking about hacking the kernel, just deleting one file. "Sorry sir, can't help you."
Aggravated, I dig out the Property List tool. Can't find the setting anywhere. Finally (combined with other issues I was having with the machine -- Office was causing Kern Protection errors) I wipe it and install from scratch. I then lock that Display panel and never touch it again.
Now, you talk about Apple being open. You say you can hack 99% of the OS. Yet, I changed the brightness using Apple's OWN tool, and they weren't able to tell me where the setting is stored. WTF?
Also, you talk about Grandma not needing kernel mods. I don't know about you, but when I set up my Mac for grandma, I installed Parallels. I told her "Go here if you can't see a website." Put the IE shortcut right out in the open for her.
Parallels uses kernel mods. So when you say "will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here", I guess you're talking people BESIDES the all the new Mac owners who bought these machines because they could now run Windows.
And your point is what exactly? We're talking about two completely different things here.
Everyone knows Google runs Linux -- for their systems. Most companies I know have at least some services on Linux. I know very few that are seriously running Mac OS X Server.
That has nothing to with business relationships, strategic partnerships, or what will ultimately bring them in gobs of cash.
It's like a company running Verizon for their landline service, then setting up a strategic partnership with Cingular. The only reason they might choose Verizon for the partnership is if they can get some kind of deal. Otherwise, you go with what makes the most business sense.
Since there is no underlying company that drives all things Linux (last I read, Google uses a modified kernel and their own file system), there's no special "deal" to be formed with a strategic partnership with the OS.
While I agree it's a copout and a bit of a bandaid, it really wasn't that expensive. I got my mom the cheapest iMac available. Along with a company discount, it ended up being around $900.
"Partnering" with Linux (is that even possible?) would not be as smart a business decision. Apple has handheld devices in millions of consumers' hands, a growing number of computers on peoples' desks and partnerships within the entertainment industry -- all things Google wants. Their pockets also just happen to be lined deep with cash. If you haven't noticed, Google has been making huge inroads into video and community collaboration -- why not partner with the company that has already done much of the dirty work forming the relationships?
A Linux "partnership" (with RedHat? Mandrake?) would buy them what, exactly? An OS still primarily used by server admins and tech elite. A hodgepodge of competing standards.
I wouldn't be surprised if the geeks at Google (and I'm sure there's still a ton of them) are pushing their own Linux projects. But the company as a whole is designed to make money, and Apple makes more sense than anything right now, given the direction they're heading.
Initial reports from people who've bought them say they run pretty cool. They extended the vent at the back to the length of the chassis and apparently the fans run longer and harder. It's not the coldest laptop in the world, but you can't cook food with it like you could the last version.
I know, that's the obvious answer. Especially coming from a Mac zealot.
However, I'm not a Mac zealot. Far from it. I probably run in the neighborhood of 10 different OSes in my home right now.
About a year ago, I got so sick and tired of dealing with the CONSTANT spyware my relatives were getting that I just got fed up. The kids were constantly downloading P2P apps and ruining the machine.
Finally, I said screw it. When one of my brothers decided he needed a computer for college, I bought him an iBook G4. Didn't even ask him.
He never noticed the difference. In fact, he never calls with a problem. It just works.
Did the same thing with my sister, my other brother and my mom. iBook G4, MacBook Pro and iMac respectively.
Nothing. No calls about the computer. Just works.
Mac OS is not the best system in the world. It has its quirks, and I would never run it as a server (for example). But for plain, old regular users, like my folks, it's saved countless hours of pulling my hair out. My 2 cents.
This is the same company that completely dropped old processor support when they moved to the PowerPC.
This is the same company that completely dropped old keyboard and mouse connections when they moved to USB.
This is the same company that completely dropped classic as part of the default install of OS X after only a year.
This is likely the same company that will be shipping Intel-only versions of its software in a year or two.
Apple has been known to exemplify hubris if they feel they're moving to honestly better (either from the consumer -- or their own -- standpoint) tech. They would drop the clickwheel in a second if they felt something better was available.
Do you seriously believe that an iPod that is primarily devoted to video has no cause to be considered a different product from the one that is devoted to music?
No, I believe they would simply axe the existing iPod line and replace it with the widescreen version. It would make absolutely NO sense to ship both a 4:3 and 16:9 iPod that did essentially the same thing with a different interface -- it'd confuse the hell out of consumers.
Not to mention, it would go totally against the entire history of Apple products. The only time they've ever remotely done this is with the iPod Photo, which lasted as it's own product line for less than a year before it was folded back into the regular iPod line. Notice when the iPod that DID play video came out, Steve Jobs went out of his way to say "We're calling it iPod. Just iPod." Not to mention, when they shifted to widescreen LCDs on their computers, they pretty much went wholehog. They didn't release version within product lines of "This one is iMac Widescreen, while this one is iMac Classic", etc.
Based on their history, the widescreen one will be called "just iPod", and the existing 4:3 will be axed.
First off, you're quoting Wikipedia and reference.com to form the basis of your argument. Stop that. It just looks dumb.
Second, if you've worked in product sales or even manufacturing for any length of time, you'd know the difference between "brand", "product line" and "version".
Brand = name used across varying products that the consumer can easily remember. Examples: iPod, Mac Product line = products sold with similar characters, packaged identically. Examples: iPod Nano, MacBook Pro Version = product within a product line with specific characteristics. Examples: iPod Nano 2GB, MacBook Pro 15"
If you were hired by Apple for marketing and referred to the "iPod product line" you'd be fired the first day. Ditto if you were an operations manager at one of their factories.
The parent poster's argument was that Apple wouldn't release a new interface on the iPod because that would create an "or situation". My argument is that Apple would just axe the original iPod style (carried through to the current generation with minor modifications) and release the new video iPod as "the" iPod. The reason they'd do this is because the wouldn't ship two versions of the "regular iPod" that do video, with one doing it in 4:3 and a clickwheel with the other doing it in 16:9 -- it'd be asinine and confuse the hell out of the consumer.
Let's put it this way: the current iPod Nano CAN do video, based on the chips it uses. Why doesn't Apple do this? The obvious (incorrect) answer is because of the tiny screen. The real reason is that Apple doesn't want Nano cannibalizing regular iPod sales further. The Mini and Nano have vastly outsold the regular iPod.
If Apple were to release a widescreen iPod they'd get rid of the current and call the new one "iPod". End of story.
ARRRGGGHHH.... you're the third guy who's responded this way.
Read my comment again. SAME VERSION OF THE PRODUCT LINE. The Nano is a different version of the product line than the 5th-generation iPod. The Shuffle is a different product line.
I'm pointing out that once Apple chooses a design, they keep it consistent WITHIN THAT VERSION. You will not see two iPod 6th generations with different designs, just as you don't see two different 5th generation iPods acting differently today.
Btw, I guess what they say is true -- idiots act in groups. That's the only way I could possibly understand 3 different people not reading a comment fully before responding.
Why are people missing the "same product line" portion of my comment? Are you guys actually reading the comment before responding?
As I said, all of the iPods IN THE SAME PRODUCT LINE share the same characteristics. All of the iPods 5th generation. All of the Nanos. Those are different product lines with completely different hardware and software. The "iPod" name is just branding.
The only time things change in an existing product line is when they make a permanent change (iPod Shuffle then and now).
I said same version of the product line. E.g. all of the 5th-generation iPods, then all of the Nanos, etc. Try reading the comment BEFORE posting. Thanks.
Since when has Apple ever placed two different UI designs on the same product line? Think about it.
You buy an iMac, doesn't matter what version (17, 20 or 24-inch). They all act exactly the same. None have different buttons or a different design.
You buy a Mac Book -- ditto. One is black, but outside that they all act the same.
All of Apple's computers (outside servers) use the same OS. None of that "Windows XP Home", "Windows XP Pro" crap.
The reason why it's not an "or" proposition is because Apple never does "or". They make one change and carry it across all the versions on the current product line. It keeps things simple. When they moved to touch screen buttons in the second generation, it was the whole iPod product line. When they switched to clickwheel buttons, again, the whole product line. If they decide to go to a virtual clickwheel, or pressable virtual buttons along the side, whatever -- they'll carry it through the whole iPod (regular version) line.
Those who don't adapt fall outside society. They don't participate and are often weeded out.
Example: monkey man adopts tool. Other monkey mans find tool useful and accomplish goals with tool. Those outside the tool-users either adapt or they don't. If they don't adapt, they don't get to partake in the benefits (or drawbacks) involved with the tool.
You can apply the same thing to guns, telephones, etc. Every time a change like this occurs, people either adapt and accept it or revolt against it (and in turn don't participate in that part of society). Very rarely does revolting actually work (and so far I haven't seen Mom & Dad Homebody picketing in front of major Hollywood studios yet).
That ain't right.
No one ever said society was fair.
The rules were set up as a bargain between society and the publishers, and what's happening here is that they are unilaterally altering the agreement.
False. The rules you're talking about (freely-copyable content) belonged to a different era. They aren't saying they're going to come to your house and rip your old (un'DRMed) Beatles out of your closet. They're saying here are the rules on the new content -- you can buy it if you want or don't.
And that leaves one in the position that either they become self-inforced social outcasts, or they bend over and take it... *OR* they stand up and fight it and say that it's not right what the companies are doing... just like PP.
Last I checked, avoiding Nacho Libre didn't exactly cast one to the shadows.
And this whole fight is pointless. It's stupid for individuals to try to control big media. It makes much more sense to create media yourself -- YouTube, Google Video, etc. -- and show them the power of indie media.
Clockwork Orange came out during a time where DRM wasn't commonplace, people could afford (and wanted to go) to the local movie theater and we didn't pay extra money for special home versions that were a couple frame different than the original film. Don't get confused by things.
Why is that every time I read one of these tirades it sounds like some guy strapped to a chair with his eyelids propped open ala Clockwork Orange?
Guess what? You have the right (no quotes) to not buy the DVD in the first place. You have the right (no quotes) to tell Hollywood, the RIAA, and the entire goddamn entertainment industry to shove this crap up their ass. You have the right (no quotes) to show them with your wallet that you don't want their drivel, DRM'd or not.
Instead, you (i.e.. the consumer) pay $9 for a $2 movie. You go out and buy the Super Amazing Collector's Edition with one more frame redone than the last time. You make films like Nacho Libre a commercial success.
Basically, you justify their whole business model, and when they ship stuff like DVDs with DRM you lap it up. Rather than avoiding it in the first place.
Yes, you have a right to complain. You also have the right never to give the industry money in the first place. Which is the smarter move?
And what of the copy to another device? How exactly do you dictate what happens to it?
As I mentioned, it would lock itself each time with whatever DRM happened to be on the device. He doesn't need to make it impossible to pirate -- just difficult enough that people will only copy files to devices they own. Same as Apple -- their rules are pretty open. You could always burn CDs from the iTunes store and recode to MP3. (And brother, don't tell me about lost quality. You got subpar quality when you bought it from the iTunes store in the first place.
If you do something illegal with the tools, that's your problem. Same could be said of owning a car. Or a gun. Or a freaking two by four for that matter.
I don't know where you live, but there's mafia around here. If a gunshop is consistently selling to the family, the police raid them. If a used car salesman continually sells them black cars with tinted windows, to the family the police raid them. If your tools -- the "car or gun or two by four" or whatever -- are continually used to commit piracy like DVD Jon's, you're going to get fingered. Regardless if you committed the act or not.
Slashdot Mirror
In America, if a police officer accidentally shoots a hostage they're not liable. If what Blizzard does benefits the whole, the "collateral damage" (hard to call it that when it probably represents less than 0.1% of the userbase) is justified.
You say side effect; many others felt it was the only draw. If I recall correctly, the bnetd forums were chock full of people talking about how to strip the DRM off the game disks, hacks, etc. A few might have felt it was a "better" experience -- most were trying to play the games without buying them.
Personally, I never understood the allure of bnetd. The games are like $10 in stores right now. Battle.net is probably up 99.9% of the time and is completely free.
What you just said would make sense if they weren't RUNNING WOW ON LINUX SERVERS. Their database environment has been Oracle on Linux since the game was released.
http://www.blizzard.com/jobopp/senior-oracle-data
Blizzard has nothing against Linux users. Their main beef is with cheaters, and I'm sure these accounts will be reenabled. But some Linux users (incorrectly) jump to conclusions that they're being targeted.
Their previous beef was about bnetd allowing people to play online without buying games. They could care less if people played the game on Linux, they just wanted to make sure people went through official servers and paid to play the game. Again, some Linux users jump to conclusions that Blizzard was targeting the Linux userbase in general.
Poor assumptions make poor arguments. Incorrect assumptions make faulty ones. If you're assuming Blizzard hates Linux or Linux users, you're incorrect. They wouldn't be using the OS themselves if that was the case.
I find your post amusing.
Recently I purchased a MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo. For all intents and purposes it's an excellent machine. Runs a little warm, but works well. It's replacing a Dell Inspiron that decided to commit suicide.
So anyway, first day I crack open the box, dig into System Preferences and play with the settings. I go into the Display panel, which has perhaps the weirdest slider widget in the history of all operating systems. Basically, you set the brightness then (if you decide to let it) the MacBook Pro uses an ambient light sensor to raise and lower that brightness based on the lighting in the room. It's a neat feature, but if you set the brightness too high (or too low) it doesn't really work.
So I play around with it a bit and save. Too bright. I reopen the preference pane and decide I want to set it to the default base brightness. No "Reset to default" button. Hmm. Maybe there is no default. So, I create a new account, log into it and open up the Display preferences. Ok, it has a default brightness setting. So where's it stored? I start digging around through plists trying to find the one that controls the Display pane. Nothing.
Finally, I call up Apple support and say "Hey, I want to reset this thing back to the default value. Do you know what plist I'd need to delete to do that?" Their answer: "Sorry sir, that's privileged information about the operating system." Huh? It's just a plist -- I'm not talking about hacking the kernel, just deleting one file. "Sorry sir, can't help you."
Aggravated, I dig out the Property List tool. Can't find the setting anywhere. Finally (combined with other issues I was having with the machine -- Office was causing Kern Protection errors) I wipe it and install from scratch. I then lock that Display panel and never touch it again.
Now, you talk about Apple being open. You say you can hack 99% of the OS. Yet, I changed the brightness using Apple's OWN tool, and they weren't able to tell me where the setting is stored. WTF?
Also, you talk about Grandma not needing kernel mods. I don't know about you, but when I set up my Mac for grandma, I installed Parallels. I told her "Go here if you can't see a website." Put the IE shortcut right out in the open for her.
Parallels uses kernel mods. So when you say "will never EVER need the sort of kernel mods that you are discussing here", I guess you're talking people BESIDES the all the new Mac owners who bought these machines because they could now run Windows.
And your point is what exactly? We're talking about two completely different things here.
Everyone knows Google runs Linux -- for their systems. Most companies I know have at least some services on Linux. I know very few that are seriously running Mac OS X Server.
That has nothing to with business relationships, strategic partnerships, or what will ultimately bring them in gobs of cash.
It's like a company running Verizon for their landline service, then setting up a strategic partnership with Cingular. The only reason they might choose Verizon for the partnership is if they can get some kind of deal. Otherwise, you go with what makes the most business sense.
Since there is no underlying company that drives all things Linux (last I read, Google uses a modified kernel and their own file system), there's no special "deal" to be formed with a strategic partnership with the OS.
While I agree it's a copout and a bit of a bandaid, it really wasn't that expensive. I got my mom the cheapest iMac available. Along with a company discount, it ended up being around $900.
Bootcamp.
Problem solved.
"Partnering" with Linux (is that even possible?) would not be as smart a business decision. Apple has handheld devices in millions of consumers' hands, a growing number of computers on peoples' desks and partnerships within the entertainment industry -- all things Google wants. Their pockets also just happen to be lined deep with cash. If you haven't noticed, Google has been making huge inroads into video and community collaboration -- why not partner with the company that has already done much of the dirty work forming the relationships?
A Linux "partnership" (with RedHat? Mandrake?) would buy them what, exactly? An OS still primarily used by server admins and tech elite. A hodgepodge of competing standards.
I wouldn't be surprised if the geeks at Google (and I'm sure there's still a ton of them) are pushing their own Linux projects. But the company as a whole is designed to make money, and Apple makes more sense than anything right now, given the direction they're heading.
Initial reports from people who've bought them say they run pretty cool. They extended the vent at the back to the length of the chassis and apparently the fans run longer and harder. It's not the coldest laptop in the world, but you can't cook food with it like you could the last version.
Seriously, get a Mac.
I know, that's the obvious answer. Especially coming from a Mac zealot.
However, I'm not a Mac zealot. Far from it. I probably run in the neighborhood of 10 different OSes in my home right now.
About a year ago, I got so sick and tired of dealing with the CONSTANT spyware my relatives were getting that I just got fed up. The kids were constantly downloading P2P apps and ruining the machine.
Finally, I said screw it. When one of my brothers decided he needed a computer for college, I bought him an iBook G4. Didn't even ask him.
He never noticed the difference. In fact, he never calls with a problem. It just works.
Did the same thing with my sister, my other brother and my mom. iBook G4, MacBook Pro and iMac respectively.
Nothing. No calls about the computer. Just works.
Mac OS is not the best system in the world. It has its quirks, and I would never run it as a server (for example). But for plain, old regular users, like my folks, it's saved countless hours of pulling my hair out. My 2 cents.
Opinion denied. YOU LOSE. Good day sir.
This is the same company that completely dropped old processor support when they moved to the PowerPC.
This is the same company that completely dropped old keyboard and mouse connections when they moved to USB.
This is the same company that completely dropped classic as part of the default install of OS X after only a year.
This is likely the same company that will be shipping Intel-only versions of its software in a year or two.
Apple has been known to exemplify hubris if they feel they're moving to honestly better (either from the consumer -- or their own -- standpoint) tech. They would drop the clickwheel in a second if they felt something better was available.
No, I believe they would simply axe the existing iPod line and replace it with the widescreen version. It would make absolutely NO sense to ship both a 4:3 and 16:9 iPod that did essentially the same thing with a different interface -- it'd confuse the hell out of consumers.
Not to mention, it would go totally against the entire history of Apple products. The only time they've ever remotely done this is with the iPod Photo, which lasted as it's own product line for less than a year before it was folded back into the regular iPod line. Notice when the iPod that DID play video came out, Steve Jobs went out of his way to say "We're calling it iPod. Just iPod." Not to mention, when they shifted to widescreen LCDs on their computers, they pretty much went wholehog. They didn't release version within product lines of "This one is iMac Widescreen, while this one is iMac Classic", etc.
Based on their history, the widescreen one will be called "just iPod", and the existing 4:3 will be axed.
First off, you're quoting Wikipedia and reference.com to form the basis of your argument. Stop that. It just looks dumb.
Second, if you've worked in product sales or even manufacturing for any length of time, you'd know the difference between "brand", "product line" and "version".
Brand = name used across varying products that the consumer can easily remember. Examples: iPod, Mac
Product line = products sold with similar characters, packaged identically. Examples: iPod Nano, MacBook Pro
Version = product within a product line with specific characteristics. Examples: iPod Nano 2GB, MacBook Pro 15"
If you were hired by Apple for marketing and referred to the "iPod product line" you'd be fired the first day. Ditto if you were an operations manager at one of their factories.
The parent poster's argument was that Apple wouldn't release a new interface on the iPod because that would create an "or situation". My argument is that Apple would just axe the original iPod style (carried through to the current generation with minor modifications) and release the new video iPod as "the" iPod. The reason they'd do this is because the wouldn't ship two versions of the "regular iPod" that do video, with one doing it in 4:3 and a clickwheel with the other doing it in 16:9 -- it'd be asinine and confuse the hell out of the consumer.
Let's put it this way: the current iPod Nano CAN do video, based on the chips it uses. Why doesn't Apple do this? The obvious (incorrect) answer is because of the tiny screen. The real reason is that Apple doesn't want Nano cannibalizing regular iPod sales further. The Mini and Nano have vastly outsold the regular iPod.
If Apple were to release a widescreen iPod they'd get rid of the current and call the new one "iPod". End of story.
ARRRGGGHHH.... you're the third guy who's responded this way.
Read my comment again. SAME VERSION OF THE PRODUCT LINE. The Nano is a different version of the product line than the 5th-generation iPod. The Shuffle is a different product line.
I'm pointing out that once Apple chooses a design, they keep it consistent WITHIN THAT VERSION. You will not see two iPod 6th generations with different designs, just as you don't see two different 5th generation iPods acting differently today.
Btw, I guess what they say is true -- idiots act in groups. That's the only way I could possibly understand 3 different people not reading a comment fully before responding.
Why are people missing the "same product line" portion of my comment? Are you guys actually reading the comment before responding?
As I said, all of the iPods IN THE SAME PRODUCT LINE share the same characteristics. All of the iPods 5th generation. All of the Nanos. Those are different product lines with completely different hardware and software. The "iPod" name is just branding.
The only time things change in an existing product line is when they make a permanent change (iPod Shuffle then and now).
I said same version of the product line. E.g. all of the 5th-generation iPods, then all of the Nanos, etc. Try reading the comment BEFORE posting. Thanks.
Since when has Apple ever placed two different UI designs on the same product line? Think about it.
You buy an iMac, doesn't matter what version (17, 20 or 24-inch). They all act exactly the same. None have different buttons or a different design.
You buy a Mac Book -- ditto. One is black, but outside that they all act the same.
All of Apple's computers (outside servers) use the same OS. None of that "Windows XP Home", "Windows XP Pro" crap.
The reason why it's not an "or" proposition is because Apple never does "or". They make one change and carry it across all the versions on the current product line. It keeps things simple. When they moved to touch screen buttons in the second generation, it was the whole iPod product line. When they switched to clickwheel buttons, again, the whole product line. If they decide to go to a virtual clickwheel, or pressable virtual buttons along the side, whatever -- they'll carry it through the whole iPod (regular version) line.
Great. Now I have a mental image of a fish jumping out of a cake burned into my head. Thanks a lot you bastard.
Uh, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's how society and civilization as a whole functions.
1.) Masses accept broadly-defined rules.
2.) Technology changes the rules.
3.) Masses adapt.
Those who don't adapt fall outside society. They don't participate and are often weeded out.
Example: monkey man adopts tool. Other monkey mans find tool useful and accomplish goals with tool. Those outside the tool-users either adapt or they don't. If they don't adapt, they don't get to partake in the benefits (or drawbacks) involved with the tool.
You can apply the same thing to guns, telephones, etc. Every time a change like this occurs, people either adapt and accept it or revolt against it (and in turn don't participate in that part of society). Very rarely does revolting actually work (and so far I haven't seen Mom & Dad Homebody picketing in front of major Hollywood studios yet).
No one ever said society was fair.
False. The rules you're talking about (freely-copyable content) belonged to a different era. They aren't saying they're going to come to your house and rip your old (un'DRMed) Beatles out of your closet. They're saying here are the rules on the new content -- you can buy it if you want or don't.
Last I checked, avoiding Nacho Libre didn't exactly cast one to the shadows.
And this whole fight is pointless. It's stupid for individuals to try to control big media. It makes much more sense to create media yourself -- YouTube, Google Video, etc. -- and show them the power of indie media.
Clockwork Orange came out during a time where DRM wasn't commonplace, people could afford (and wanted to go) to the local movie theater and we didn't pay extra money for special home versions that were a couple frame different than the original film. Don't get confused by things.
Why is that every time I read one of these tirades it sounds like some guy strapped to a chair with his eyelids propped open ala Clockwork Orange?
Guess what? You have the right (no quotes) to not buy the DVD in the first place. You have the right (no quotes) to tell Hollywood, the RIAA, and the entire goddamn entertainment industry to shove this crap up their ass. You have the right (no quotes) to show them with your wallet that you don't want their drivel, DRM'd or not.
Instead, you (i.e.. the consumer) pay $9 for a $2 movie. You go out and buy the Super Amazing Collector's Edition with one more frame redone than the last time. You make films like Nacho Libre a commercial success.
Basically, you justify their whole business model, and when they ship stuff like DVDs with DRM you lap it up. Rather than avoiding it in the first place.
Yes, you have a right to complain. You also have the right never to give the industry money in the first place. Which is the smarter move?
With cranberry sauce?
As I mentioned, it would lock itself each time with whatever DRM happened to be on the device. He doesn't need to make it impossible to pirate -- just difficult enough that people will only copy files to devices they own. Same as Apple -- their rules are pretty open. You could always burn CDs from the iTunes store and recode to MP3. (And brother, don't tell me about lost quality. You got subpar quality when you bought it from the iTunes store in the first place.
I don't know where you live, but there's mafia around here. If a gunshop is consistently selling to the family, the police raid them. If a used car salesman continually sells them black cars with tinted windows, to the family the police raid them. If your tools -- the "car or gun or two by four" or whatever -- are continually used to commit piracy like DVD Jon's, you're going to get fingered. Regardless if you committed the act or not.