1) It is possible (tho unlikely) that Apple could be legally forced to shut down iTMS and stop selling iPods
With over 30 million tracks sold through iTMS, Apple cannot simply abandon those who made these purchases. You will either see a) reimbursement or b) measures to strip the DRM from files c) class action lawsuit leading to either a) or b). It's an unlikely doomsday scenario laden with too many "What If's".
There's other things that could happen -- Apple can retroactively change the TOS on music you have already purchased, etc.
That's a risk you're going to have to assume - like buying a hotdog and not knowing whether the meat inside comes from contaminated rats or cows who have BSE. In fact, both Apple and Microsoft encourage those who buy DRM'd audio files to make backup copies.
What I don't understand is why people who are pondering these things even bother to shop at iTMS and then complain about DRM restrictions.
NO, i don't have to. US Copyright Law says that if i purchase copyright-protected works that i have the Fair Use right to make a copy for myself. and no i don't mean make a copy that can be used on an approved device...i mean make myself a USABLE copy (usable on my Linux box for example).
Too bad you have little or no understanding of the law. Fair-use clause is superseded by Apple's contract which you willfully sign. Fortunately, this isn't a banana republic, and you can take your dispute to court and attempt forcing Apple to supply a tool which strips DRM from AAC files. I can almost guarantee that you will be laughed out of the courtroom.
You want to use your legally purchased music on Linux, BeOS, or tape decks? Fine. Burn it onto a blank CD and exercise your fair use, where Apple, as a gatekeeper, is out of sight. There are ways to go about practicing fair-use rights. Breaking the law by illegally cracking proprietary software is not one of them.
Someone asked where the fan boys are earlier. Well, here's one. Apple's DRM is more about maintaining their hardware sales than about music protection.
The reason I'm siding with Apple on this one is simple - I would hate to see iTMS crash and burn, just to be replaced by WMA, where Microsoft can exert dominance yet in another technology sector with far more confusing and restrictive policies.
Killing the messenger because you don't agree with RIAA is a flawed strategy. I have no doubt that if it were up to Steve Jobs, he'd give away music for free just to push iPod sales. They're not the ones who created these rules. Blame the RIAA.
Isn't it absolutely clear Apple doesn't make money on music, but rather their devices?
I don't think anyone disputing this well-established fact.
Re:Why is Apple involved with this?
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Fair use is a right, and it is regardless of the transmission medium. A company does not get to decide whether or not I have that right. Our government has already decided that I have the right to fair use.
That's all fine and dandy, but consider the following. AAC DRM media is not forced upon you. In the capitalist system you have the option of voting with your wallet and choosing alternate distributors. Willfully choosing a digital music vendor, signing a contract and then cracking the files simply because you disagree with the restrictions placed on them blows the fair-use (direct circumvention of DRM) argument out of the water. It doesn't even sound sane. You mean to tell me that you sign a contract with a company who's policy you hate, then go on to breach it? Where are your principles? I direct you to the terms of service:
"You agree not to attempt to, or assist another person to, circumvent, reverse-engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise tamper with any of the security components related to such Usage Rules for any reason whatsoever."
While fair-use is a really good concept, it shouldn't be used as a moral blank check to excuse illegal practices, otherwise it just makes those people who are legitimately envoking fair-use to look foolish. I've heard people defend their use of warez as fair-use - some rebels who decided that they were entitled to OSX Panther 10.3 upgrade, and convniced themselves that it was just a Service Pack, or pirating iPhoto 4 because the standalone version lacked features and they didn't need iLife suite. Where does it stop?
In any event, before you attack me for the above sentence, you need to alter your perception of AAC DRM files and view them as rental media, rather than something you own - there is still a link between you and the vendor in a form of an ID which dictates how you may use the files. I would be more inclined to side with your fair-use concerns were you to advocate recording media onto CDs and ripping it from there, since Audio Discs fall beyond the control of Apple's proprietary anti-piracy measures.
The government's blessing which lets people engage in fair-use practices is superseded by Apple's own contract. Whenever there is such a legal conflict, company's contract with the customer supersedes the law, since you're not lifting information with legally available tools. The circumvention program has been deemed illegal by Apple, hence you're in violation and fair-use does not apply in this case. If you believe this is incorrect, sue Apple and observe the results. No judge would even consider your argument because you've been already accommodated enough in terms of being able to burn and control the content the way you please.
If the companys dont want us to have fair use, then the companys should not get any copyright protection. Period!
I agree. Call your representative. Vigilantism is hardly an effective (or legal) way to solve social injustice.
That's really a bad example. There was a trademark dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. AAPL settled for 25 million (if I recall correctly), and signed an agreement not to produce musical devices. This was in 1981; since then technology changed dramatically, so the court will ultimately be the the arbiter in this particular dispute. I'm not sure how this applies to fair-use.
Did Apple violate the contractual obligation not to produce musical devices? Yes. Is the contract from 1981 relevant today? Maybe not; it could be voidable. It's a far stretch to try and compare willful circumvention of DRM and consequent violation of the contract with two-decade-old trademark dispute.
Re:Why is Apple involved with this?
on
Update on Playfair
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.
Apple is a computer company.
Also, content distributor, and a software company.
They do not own or control the copyrights on the music they are allegedly trying to protect.
But they control the method which facilitates AAC DRM, needed to let record companies to release their catalogues for distrubution. Without PlayFair DRM, it would be hard or next to impossible to persuade record labels to furnish iTMS with audio content (which they own).
If anything, the RIAA should be the ones to go after these guys, not Apple.
Again, it's the method not the content.
They should tell Apple straight out that since Apple does not own the copyrights to the works which are supposedly being illegally copied, they do not have the right to make this request.
Let me give you an example. Suppose you manufacture and sell locks and at the same time rent a storage facility where people keep their property. Someone comes along and makes a master key which defeats your lock mechanism, when it is illegal (by law) to reverse-engineer, or reproduce master keys or to otherwise tamper with the lock. In the end, the gatekeeper is liable for the stolen property and the burden to prosecute those who are manufacturing these master keys is on the lock manufacturer, not the owner of the property.
Get it? RIAA doesn't have anything to do with AAC DRM. Apple is the gatekeeper and they're trying to protect the well-being of their online music store.
You want fair-use? Go buy the CD or use less-restricted distribution channels who provide you with MP3s and OGGs. iTMS doesn't force you to purchase digital (restricted) files from their store. Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering. Any fair-use argument here is completely laughable.
but this is one of the main reasons I chose ReplayTV.
ReplayTV beats the crap out of TiVo boxes when put head-to-head against Series2 models. I am thrilled that TiVo's demise is near and DVRs are becoming commoditized.
The reason for my extreme hatered of TiVo is the anti-consumer steps they took to lock the content so you couldn't easily move/extract data right after Series2 replaced Series1.
ReplayTV, on the other hand, is easy in terms of extracting your recorded programs via LAN connection, directly into the PC and you can do whatever the hell you wish with programs.
I'm not really sure how other DVRs stack up against ReplayTV, since I haven't tried them, but it's good knowing that one of the worst offenders in content control is having troubles monopolizing the marketplace. Watch out for the door, TiVo.
Why can't I do whatever I choose with the music I pay for? What if I want to put it on my other solid-state mp3 player, in mp3 format? This is a good utility.
Ideologically, it makes perfect sense to us.
But you have to look at broader implications. I'll put this in crude example. Say you're a world superpower who tries to bring your brand of democracy to some region. There are two major groups who battle amongst themselves, and naturally, the logic dictates that you must choose the lesser of two evils in order to bleed the other side and assume the results, because beating the most evil side is next to impossible with your resources and influence. By throwing a wrench into the machine of lesser evil just complicates your chances of ever gaining strenght in the region. By sabotaging the lesser evil, you're inadvertantly enabling the greater evil, from which there is no cure.
Back to WMA. For once, Microsoft is truly hurting in the digital music distribution market. If AAC files are pirated with a click of a mouse and RIAA pulls the contract from Apple, Microsoft wins. There is no other company willing to put up a fight against their machine. What's the next step? Have there been any successful hacks to defeat WMA DRM?
These are the self-defeating kinds of tactics that crackers have always employed. People who applaud this project, lose any moral ground to argue against Microsoft's draconian restrictions and market dominance. Even when iTMS essentially sells the same thing, you must look at it from the competition point-or-view. Once opposition goes away, Microsoft will be free to screw its customers the way it pleases, as it does with every other market segment via their licensing/pricing model.
I would be somewhat reluctant to reply have they came up with a method to crack both of the DRM files. As it stands right now, you are bleeding the side who's winning the war against Microsoft.
And this is exacly why Microsoft will win at the end - lack of hindsight from those who oppose it.
Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend who talks like someone supportive of indie record labels, but never pays for music. He always complains how Big-5 are keeping talented artists at bay, manipulating prices, etc. but at the same time, he's reluctant to support those small labels. It's the "I'm just one person, they're not going to get rich with my $10 dollars" mentality.
Fast forward to 2006. Microsoft has 95% of the digital audio distribution market locked with WMA, and once a month, geeks will flock to a/. story and moan how WMA is anti-fair-use.
People must accept the fact that DRM is here to stay. Simple answer - Don't buy from these distributors and complain about their DRM scheme. By purchasing files from iTMS with full foreknowledge that content is restricted, you are making a conscious decision to be bound by the terms of contract Apple/RIAA puts forth. You are neither entiled to that content, nor forced to purchase it.
I'll be damned if this isn't true. Prior to Apple introducing the White in-ear headphones, iPod users were buying Japanese imported Sony MDR-EX71SL headphones at really high premiums just so they didn't have to wear the black variety which is available in the states.
White headphones are like a status symbol now. I'm not sure if it's sad or funny.
(Full Disclosure: iPod + white headphones managed to brainwash me also)
Yeah. I especially like the Intel Centrino laptop commercials where someone is in the middle of the fucking ocean or on the airport runway surfing the internet.
"Intel Centrino Lets You Unwire Your Life. Now you can enjoy a truly mobile lifestyle!"
Unless Intel advocates wardriving, I don't see how it's truly mobile. This is far more deceptive to me than G5 ads, which were just designed to let people know that Apple isn't behind times with its processor speed anymore, albeit the wording was amplified to drive the point home.
I'm certanly aware why they implemented DRM. RIAA thinks we are all criminals. What I don't understand is why anybody of the music buying crowd defend them. There is no reason to think we would not buy noncrippled music when we gladly buy crippled.
You have to stop thinking of buying stuff from iTMS as supporting RIAA, unless of course, you're building a massive collection, purchasing at the rate of 200 tracks per month. You won't make RIAA rich buy getting what's needed and carrying on with "illegal" downloads from P2P. iTMS consumption can coexist with p2p. I'm just arguing on the side of convinience.
That's the problem. It takes more bitrate to encode more acoustically complex passages.
iTMS is not a tool for audiophiles. To majority of people it sounds in tune with CD quality, considering the fact that John Q. Public doesn't play burned media on Nakamichi or Marantz decks. It's really a non-issue for 99% of buyers.
As I understand it, iTMS purchased recordings are not VBR.
AAC is VBR.
all iTunes Music Store gives the customer is a copy of the recording, not the right to synchronize it to an audiovisual work
Of course. Not for commercial projects. For stuff which you might want to edit and put on the web or otherwise send out to friends, they won't bother. Same as with regular CDs.
This is incorrect. Plus, you're entirely missing the point of iTMS.
Not every song is available on P2P. In fact, I'd wager that less than 20% of the iTMS library can be found on free networks at any one time. P2P is primarily saturated with recent music, or what might be considered hip by today's standards. But that's not all. If you happen to find something which you're looking for, chances of downloading it successfully, without any bleeps, wheezes and somewhat acceptable quality are slim.
Then you have the inconsistency in bitrates, varying tags, different encoders, etc. I would hardly call that hassle-free and gratifying.
iTMS gives you the option of downloading music which is uniform in bitrate, free of errors and in moderately high quality compared to 128/192k shitty Blade or Xing encodes done by some 12y/o kid on his Dell. It's instant play. Build your CD and go enjoy it, rather than having to scour 4 or 5 underground p2p networks and trying to separate the quality from the junk.
iTMS-purchased tracks are not intended to replace the CD collection. It's a point-of-sale terminal for those individuals who need something fast. Impulse-byers are the target demographic. If you happen to edit a movie and need an obscure Mel Torme track from 1940's to go with it, iTMS is the place, because you know in advance what to expect.
Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Apple did not integrate DRM into AAC files because they had contempt for the public and regarded them as criminals. It took months of compromising with RIAA to give the go-ahead with the project. Without proper authorization, iTMS would have been nothing more than mp3.com, and we all know there is no profit in such ventures.
Fair enough. Slashdot, Symmantec, and few others might have unique names. But this wouldn't work in the real world.
Do you know how many businesses there are which use generic names? Omega-, Enigma-, Progress-, All-, Liberty-, etc. Don't be surprised to find few instances of identically named companies which operate in the same sector, both in local markets and internationally.
GPL wasn't meant for such things as static (as in finished) text. That's why Creative Commons license was created to fill that hole. L/GPL serves well when living organisms are concerned, such as codebase, because it constantly evolves. Once a book is transcribed, corrections and/or additions won't be necessary majority of the time.
From what I understand, a specific license would fit the bill to swathe Project Gutenberg library, such as Attribution-NoDerivative 1.0. They have few options under which authors can license their content properly. As evident in the article, placing confidence in individuals who say they would do the right thing just isn't enough in these modern IP-dominated era.
Fortunately, all is not lost. There has got to be more to the story than just rumor based upon a spinoff website where they try to capitalize on original PG fame, however small it might be at this point.
Hit Command+K in finder, it'll bring up the connect dialogue. type in the share name, Add it to the list of favorites (plus sign) and it should stay there.
Anytime you need to connect to that server, you won't need manual typing. Just Command+K ==> Select share ==> Enter.
Same problem here. I looked around for a utility which would connect to the windows box and keep the connection alive when the powerbook sleeps, but so far, nothing substantive turned up.
I've heard there are few shareware apps, like DAVE 4.0. It seems like an overkill for such a minor annoyance.
Throwaway accounts should never be, out of all places, registered on Hotmail.com. They suspend your account if you don't login for 30 days. At least Yahoo!Mail or other free alternatives let you forget the account for few months and not get penalized for it.
In a sense, it's like double jeopardy, with the exception that masses are presumed guilty from the beginning, therefore taxed accordingly.
I believe in Canada, you can't be busted by CRIA (their own brand of RIAA), since you've already paid levy on blank media. And it only applies to downloaders. Users who serve IP are fair game.
Any Canadians who are willing to shed some light on this?
1. The market is already flooded with anti-virus applications, many of which are free.
2. No business would invest into an application made by a freshman software company. They would choose experience and mindshare over empty, unsubstantiated promises.
3. It doesn't take few hundred thousand to write a decent AV application. You can create one on a shoestring budget and package it under $10,000 or less.
4. You're assuming none of the AV products would be able to provide a "fix" for said virus, which would create a market for this fresh application. In the AV world, there is no such thing as "exclusive fix" to a widespread problem.
I am reminded of a friend I used to know who was a VERY staunch vegetarian, she wouldn't even eat food that had been prepared on the same grill or in the same pan as a meat product. And yet she wore LEATHER shoes.
Let me be the first one to tell you that vegetarians don't eat meat for variety of reasons, which does not necessarily involve ethical ideology. Vegetarians in most part, avoid animal foods for health concerns, and you would find many, who often consume eggs and milk. Humane animal treatment comes in distant second.
The group you're trying to lump her into is called veganism. They don't eat meat, and at the same time avoid (to most extent) purchasing products derived from animals (i.e. leather, oil, fur, etc). Vegans rank animal rights, environmentalism, and ethics ahead of health./nitpick
Slashdot Mirror
With over 30 million tracks sold through iTMS, Apple cannot simply abandon those who made these purchases. You will either see a) reimbursement or b) measures to strip the DRM from files c) class action lawsuit leading to either a) or b). It's an unlikely doomsday scenario laden with too many "What If's".
That's a risk you're going to have to assume - like buying a hotdog and not knowing whether the meat inside comes from contaminated rats or cows who have BSE. In fact, both Apple and Microsoft encourage those who buy DRM'd audio files to make backup copies.
What I don't understand is why people who are pondering these things even bother to shop at iTMS and then complain about DRM restrictions.
Too bad you have little or no understanding of the law. Fair-use clause is superseded by Apple's contract which you willfully sign. Fortunately, this isn't a banana republic, and you can take your dispute to court and attempt forcing Apple to supply a tool which strips DRM from AAC files. I can almost guarantee that you will be laughed out of the courtroom.
You want to use your legally purchased music on Linux, BeOS, or tape decks? Fine. Burn it onto a blank CD and exercise your fair use, where Apple, as a gatekeeper, is out of sight. There are ways to go about practicing fair-use rights. Breaking the law by illegally cracking proprietary software is not one of them.
The reason I'm siding with Apple on this one is simple - I would hate to see iTMS crash and burn, just to be replaced by WMA, where Microsoft can exert dominance yet in another technology sector with far more confusing and restrictive policies.
Killing the messenger because you don't agree with RIAA is a flawed strategy. I have no doubt that if it were up to Steve Jobs, he'd give away music for free just to push iPod sales. They're not the ones who created these rules. Blame the RIAA.
I don't think anyone disputing this well-established fact.
That's all fine and dandy, but consider the following. AAC DRM media is not forced upon you. In the capitalist system you have the option of voting with your wallet and choosing alternate distributors. Willfully choosing a digital music vendor, signing a contract and then cracking the files simply because you disagree with the restrictions placed on them blows the fair-use (direct circumvention of DRM) argument out of the water. It doesn't even sound sane. You mean to tell me that you sign a contract with a company who's policy you hate, then go on to breach it? Where are your principles? I direct you to the terms of service:
While fair-use is a really good concept, it shouldn't be used as a moral blank check to excuse illegal practices, otherwise it just makes those people who are legitimately envoking fair-use to look foolish. I've heard people defend their use of warez as fair-use - some rebels who decided that they were entitled to OSX Panther 10.3 upgrade, and convniced themselves that it was just a Service Pack, or pirating iPhoto 4 because the standalone version lacked features and they didn't need iLife suite. Where does it stop?
In any event, before you attack me for the above sentence, you need to alter your perception of AAC DRM files and view them as rental media, rather than something you own - there is still a link between you and the vendor in a form of an ID which dictates how you may use the files. I would be more inclined to side with your fair-use concerns were you to advocate recording media onto CDs and ripping it from there, since Audio Discs fall beyond the control of Apple's proprietary anti-piracy measures.
The government's blessing which lets people engage in fair-use practices is superseded by Apple's own contract. Whenever there is such a legal conflict, company's contract with the customer supersedes the law, since you're not lifting information with legally available tools. The circumvention program has been deemed illegal by Apple, hence you're in violation and fair-use does not apply in this case. If you believe this is incorrect, sue Apple and observe the results. No judge would even consider your argument because you've been already accommodated enough in terms of being able to burn and control the content the way you please.
I agree. Call your representative. Vigilantism is hardly an effective (or legal) way to solve social injustice.
That's really a bad example. There was a trademark dispute between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. AAPL settled for 25 million (if I recall correctly), and signed an agreement not to produce musical devices. This was in 1981; since then technology changed dramatically, so the court will ultimately be the the arbiter in this particular dispute. I'm not sure how this applies to fair-use.
Did Apple violate the contractual obligation not to produce musical devices? Yes. Is the contract from 1981 relevant today? Maybe not; it could be voidable. It's a far stretch to try and compare willful circumvention of DRM and consequent violation of the contract with two-decade-old trademark dispute.
Also, content distributor, and a software company.
But they control the method which facilitates AAC DRM, needed to let record companies to release their catalogues for distrubution. Without PlayFair DRM, it would be hard or next to impossible to persuade record labels to furnish iTMS with audio content (which they own).
Again, it's the method not the content.
Let me give you an example. Suppose you manufacture and sell locks and at the same time rent a storage facility where people keep their property. Someone comes along and makes a master key which defeats your lock mechanism, when it is illegal (by law) to reverse-engineer, or reproduce master keys or to otherwise tamper with the lock. In the end, the gatekeeper is liable for the stolen property and the burden to prosecute those who are manufacturing these master keys is on the lock manufacturer, not the owner of the property.
Get it? RIAA doesn't have anything to do with AAC DRM. Apple is the gatekeeper and they're trying to protect the well-being of their online music store.
You want fair-use? Go buy the CD or use less-restricted distribution channels who provide you with MP3s and OGGs. iTMS doesn't force you to purchase digital (restricted) files from their store. Abide by the terms of the contract you signed whilst registering. Any fair-use argument here is completely laughable.
ReplayTV beats the crap out of TiVo boxes when put head-to-head against Series2 models. I am thrilled that TiVo's demise is near and DVRs are becoming commoditized.
The reason for my extreme hatered of TiVo is the anti-consumer steps they took to lock the content so you couldn't easily move/extract data right after Series2 replaced Series1.
ReplayTV, on the other hand, is easy in terms of extracting your recorded programs via LAN connection, directly into the PC and you can do whatever the hell you wish with programs.
I'm not really sure how other DVRs stack up against ReplayTV, since I haven't tried them, but it's good knowing that one of the worst offenders in content control is having troubles monopolizing the marketplace. Watch out for the door, TiVo.
Ideologically, it makes perfect sense to us.
But you have to look at broader implications. I'll put this in crude example. Say you're a world superpower who tries to bring your brand of democracy to some region. There are two major groups who battle amongst themselves, and naturally, the logic dictates that you must choose the lesser of two evils in order to bleed the other side and assume the results, because beating the most evil side is next to impossible with your resources and influence. By throwing a wrench into the machine of lesser evil just complicates your chances of ever gaining strenght in the region. By sabotaging the lesser evil, you're inadvertantly enabling the greater evil, from which there is no cure.
Back to WMA. For once, Microsoft is truly hurting in the digital music distribution market. If AAC files are pirated with a click of a mouse and RIAA pulls the contract from Apple, Microsoft wins. There is no other company willing to put up a fight against their machine. What's the next step? Have there been any successful hacks to defeat WMA DRM?
These are the self-defeating kinds of tactics that crackers have always employed. People who applaud this project, lose any moral ground to argue against Microsoft's draconian restrictions and market dominance. Even when iTMS essentially sells the same thing, you must look at it from the competition point-or-view. Once opposition goes away, Microsoft will be free to screw its customers the way it pleases, as it does with every other market segment via their licensing/pricing model.
I would be somewhat reluctant to reply have they came up with a method to crack both of the DRM files. As it stands right now, you are bleeding the side who's winning the war against Microsoft.
And this is exacly why Microsoft will win at the end - lack of hindsight from those who oppose it.
Reminds me of an argument I had with a friend who talks like someone supportive of indie record labels, but never pays for music. He always complains how Big-5 are keeping talented artists at bay, manipulating prices, etc. but at the same time, he's reluctant to support those small labels. It's the "I'm just one person, they're not going to get rich with my $10 dollars" mentality.
Fast forward to 2006. Microsoft has 95% of the digital audio distribution market locked with WMA, and once a month, geeks will flock to a
People must accept the fact that DRM is here to stay. Simple answer - Don't buy from these distributors and complain about their DRM scheme. By purchasing files from iTMS with full foreknowledge that content is restricted, you are making a conscious decision to be bound by the terms of contract Apple/RIAA puts forth. You are neither entiled to that content, nor forced to purchase it.
I'll be damned if this isn't true. Prior to Apple introducing the White in-ear headphones, iPod users were buying Japanese imported Sony MDR-EX71SL headphones at really high premiums just so they didn't have to wear the black variety which is available in the states.
White headphones are like a status symbol now. I'm not sure if it's sad or funny.
(Full Disclosure: iPod + white headphones managed to brainwash me also)
Yeah. I especially like the Intel Centrino laptop commercials where someone is in the middle of the fucking ocean or on the airport runway surfing the internet.
"Intel Centrino Lets You Unwire Your Life. Now you can enjoy a truly mobile lifestyle!"
Unless Intel advocates wardriving, I don't see how it's truly mobile. This is far more deceptive to me than G5 ads, which were just designed to let people know that Apple isn't behind times with its processor speed anymore, albeit the wording was amplified to drive the point home.
You have to stop thinking of buying stuff from iTMS as supporting RIAA, unless of course, you're building a massive collection, purchasing at the rate of 200 tracks per month. You won't make RIAA rich buy getting what's needed and carrying on with "illegal" downloads from P2P. iTMS consumption can coexist with p2p. I'm just arguing on the side of convinience.
This is incorrect. Plus, you're entirely missing the point of iTMS.
Not every song is available on P2P. In fact, I'd wager that less than 20% of the iTMS library can be found on free networks at any one time. P2P is primarily saturated with recent music, or what might be considered hip by today's standards. But that's not all. If you happen to find something which you're looking for, chances of downloading it successfully, without any bleeps, wheezes and somewhat acceptable quality are slim.
Then you have the inconsistency in bitrates, varying tags, different encoders, etc. I would hardly call that hassle-free and gratifying.
iTMS gives you the option of downloading music which is uniform in bitrate, free of errors and in moderately high quality compared to 128/192k shitty Blade or Xing encodes done by some 12y/o kid on his Dell. It's instant play. Build your CD and go enjoy it, rather than having to scour 4 or 5 underground p2p networks and trying to separate the quality from the junk.
iTMS-purchased tracks are not intended to replace the CD collection. It's a point-of-sale terminal for those individuals who need something fast. Impulse-byers are the target demographic. If you happen to edit a movie and need an obscure Mel Torme track from 1940's to go with it, iTMS is the place, because you know in advance what to expect.
Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Apple did not integrate DRM into AAC files because they had contempt for the public and regarded them as criminals. It took months of compromising with RIAA to give the go-ahead with the project. Without proper authorization, iTMS would have been nothing more than mp3.com, and we all know there is no profit in such ventures.
By the time Taco gets around registering this domain, every combination will already be taken. He'll have to settle for http://XxSlashdot6969xX
Fair enough. Slashdot, Symmantec, and few others might have unique names. But this wouldn't work in the real world.
Do you know how many businesses there are which use generic names? Omega-, Enigma-, Progress-, All-, Liberty-, etc. Don't be surprised to find few instances of identically named companies which operate in the same sector, both in local markets and internationally.
Bad idea.
GPL wasn't meant for such things as static (as in finished) text. That's why Creative Commons license was created to fill that hole. L/GPL serves well when living organisms are concerned, such as codebase, because it constantly evolves. Once a book is transcribed, corrections and/or additions won't be necessary majority of the time.
From what I understand, a specific license would fit the bill to swathe Project Gutenberg library, such as Attribution-NoDerivative 1.0. They have few options under which authors can license their content properly. As evident in the article, placing confidence in individuals who say they would do the right thing just isn't enough in these modern IP-dominated era.
Fortunately, all is not lost. There has got to be more to the story than just rumor based upon a spinoff website where they try to capitalize on original PG fame, however small it might be at this point.
Hit Command+K in finder, it'll bring up the connect dialogue. type in the share name, Add it to the list of favorites (plus sign) and it should stay there.
Anytime you need to connect to that server, you won't need manual typing. Just Command+K ==> Select share ==> Enter.
Same problem here. I looked around for a utility which would connect to the windows box and keep the connection alive when the powerbook sleeps, but so far, nothing substantive turned up.
I've heard there are few shareware apps, like DAVE 4.0. It seems like an overkill for such a minor annoyance.
For those things there is Mailinator.
Throwaway accounts should never be, out of all places, registered on Hotmail.com. They suspend your account if you don't login for 30 days. At least Yahoo!Mail or other free alternatives let you forget the account for few months and not get penalized for it.
The question is - how many nerds use Hotmail.com, and why does this non-event warrant a front page article?
Yeah, I've always wondered about that.
In a sense, it's like double jeopardy, with the exception that masses are presumed guilty from the beginning, therefore taxed accordingly.
I believe in Canada, you can't be busted by CRIA (their own brand of RIAA), since you've already paid levy on blank media. And it only applies to downloaders. Users who serve IP are fair game.
Any Canadians who are willing to shed some light on this?
Buy a 40-hour iPod battery for $100 bucks.
That's Right. 40
The best real review is the one from John Grubber called Dell's Dud.
There is obvious apple bias, but I agree with pretty much every point he makes.
1. The market is already flooded with anti-virus applications, many of which are free.
2. No business would invest into an application made by a freshman software company. They would choose experience and mindshare over empty, unsubstantiated promises.
3. It doesn't take few hundred thousand to write a decent AV application. You can create one on a shoestring budget and package it under $10,000 or less.
4. You're assuming none of the AV products would be able to provide a "fix" for said virus, which would create a market for this fresh application. In the AV world, there is no such thing as "exclusive fix" to a widespread problem.
Let me be the first one to tell you that vegetarians don't eat meat for variety of reasons, which does not necessarily involve ethical ideology. Vegetarians in most part, avoid animal foods for health concerns, and you would find many, who often consume eggs and milk. Humane animal treatment comes in distant second.
The group you're trying to lump her into is called veganism. They don't eat meat, and at the same time avoid (to most extent) purchasing products derived from animals (i.e. leather, oil, fur, etc). Vegans rank animal rights, environmentalism, and ethics ahead of health.