That is the problem with the business model, in that you're not supporting the artist but the producer. The artists and the studio crew are often paid for their services beforehand, and the producer then tries to recoup his investment. It's a gambling bet, more or less, and one that the labels have tweaked to their advantage. Only the heavyweight artists manage to get a cut, really, and even then the labels game the contracts, doing their best to con the artist.
This also ignores such sticky issues as artists who cannot be reached, or those who have broken up, whose label no longer exists and have their rights stuck in limbo. If you think you're supporting the artist by buying their album years after its release, you're only fooling yourself.
Look, if you want to support an artist, go to their concerts, buy their merchandise directly from them, or do the internet equivalent of dropping a coin in their hat. Buying the album only helps the label, not the artist.
You are using the analogy is ways it isn't supposed to be used. It isn't an analogy of how security systems work, but in how the manufacturer deals with the issue instead of the customer. If (for example) Microsoft had better designed their product, there wouldn't be such a need for security that had to be bolted on afterwards. I shouldn't have to buy my car door locks separately from my car, so why should I have to even consider which security suite to buy for my laptop?
No, if our buildings were built securely, we wouldn't have to keep hiring locksmiths and alarm systems contractors to reconfigure everything after we bought the damn place. If the doors weren't so flimsy, I wouldn't have to buy replacement doors. If the walls were better insulated, I wouldn't have to buy that ugly thermal siding.
If my computer's OS wasn't so full of loopholes and vulnerabilities, I wouldn't need to install 3rd-party security software.
I don't think that was the point. The point was that the security industry has been holding back out-of-the-box security, mostly due to self-interest. If systems were designed at the core level to be more secure, there would be less need for after-market security measures.
To use an analogy, it's as if the locksmiths had convinced us all that we need to buy our car keys and anti-theft systems from them because automobile manufacturers are reluctant to add door locks.
Let's put this a different way: how big is the market for putting tougher locks on automobiles? Of course they still get stolen, and there used to be a pretty good market for after-market car alarms, but most cars have good enough of a security system (in the opinion of their owners, that is). Most computers, though, if they were cars, have no locks on the doors, and it's far too easy to bypass the ignition key, steal the fuel, and so on.
I think that's what Mr. Schneier is getting at: most appliances and things we own have a reasonable amount of security out of the box, but not most computers. Standard security should be a concern addressed by the manufacturer, not the customer.
Another possibility is to have more than one crew module, attached to each other by habitrail-like tubes, spun on a common axis to generate artificial gravity. They should be far enough away to prevent nasty headaches and nausea from Coriolis forces within the modules themselves, and weighted enough so that all astronauts could enter one module without disrupting balance too much.
The crews chosen should be allowed to choose their own partners themselves beforehand. Sure, the shrinks could say that Brad and Janet make an ideal pair, but what if Brad already is smitten with Magenta, who will be on the next mission? I say let the astronauts choose for themselves.
What if one of the crew members goes nuts? The habitrail structure means that in a worst-case, one of the modules could be made into a brig. The crew must be able to police itself, then, and stable enough to accept the partner of the locked-up to shack up with one of the other pairs. Perhaps they would like to swap partners, or segregate to male and female-only modules. It should be up to them (and most likely they would experiment to relieve the boredom).
A side thought: remember also that they won't be able to IM with Earth, due to the distances involved and the speed of light. The closer they get to Mars, the longer the lag between message and response. Still, they should be able to download entertainment of any sort, have any movie or song they wish uploaded to their iPod-equivalents. Let them watch porn if they want to!
In all seriousness, the ship really should be designed to use centrifugal force as an artificial gravity, as it would solve many long-term health problems. Sure, it will make construction costs skyrocket, adding many more moving parts, but it still seems better than the alternatives. In fact, most serious designs that I have seen involve some version of this.
It took me quite a while to figure out what you were talking about. I mean, you refer to Mac OS X as MAC, which is a common error, but then you also mention SAN, leading me to believe that you might have meant the MAC-address causing problems after all. In the end, though, I realised you probably were just venting a personal prejudice based on hearsay. Oh well...
This ought to be under "humour", not "apple". It's best to treat Dvorak's position in computer news as similar to that which Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore have in politics: opinionated punits, looking to yank chains, and all too willing to make shit up in the name of ratings. Never, ever consider him an expert. He's just an entertainer.
Actually, I think the whole point was that people prefer to have channels for their creativity. I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder, but you wise guys can rest assured I also have 1st and 2nd edition AD&D books too!), and when presented with too much room to be creative I get pulled in all directions and get nowhere. Defining a channel or breaking a task into manageable parts lets me burst free. Think of it like how the energy of a ripple in an open pond rapidly disperses, but in a channel it retains its force as a soliton wave much longer.
So yeah, I agree with the opinion. I just think it's not the obstacle that's the draw, but simply that it's a focus, or a reference point. All that energy now has a direction and isn't simply dissipating. Huge tasks where the goals are "over the horizon" are simply too daunting.
The thing about surfing without your superior's knowledge is that it reduces friction at the workplace. It won't result in firing (at least not at first), but it will pollute the atmosphere when non-work interests collide. It's best to simply avoid rather than confront at times. It's not about avoiding oppression, but avoiding potential aggravation.
The battered wife case turned out for the better mainly because we were able to co-ordinate her escape through the web. Anonymisers, IM clients and Skype all played a role. We found her a shelter and a lawyer through surfing, and we managed to get her and her children out without her husband ever getting a clue.
Naturally, the web isn't 100% private, nor do I expect to eliminate oppression totally. But any steps I can take to reduce oppression are worthwhile. And yes, I do mean oppression and worries about my fellow man as much as I do about the government. It's the overly zealous IT department that bans Corbis and Getty Images due to nudity that is just as much oppression as a government that tries to trace my steps. As long as there are lazy fools, we will need ways to circumvent them.
(By the way, what fool decided to block Corbis? We're an ad agency, damn it, and we purchase royalty-free pics from them all the time! Aaargh!)
Have you considered that there might be political reasons? Let's say I work for a rabid Bush supporter, do I want him to know that I'm a regular on the Daily Kos even though it's not forbidden to go there on my lunch break? Do I want my ISP to know what sort of games I like to play at home? Do I want you to see all of my browsing habits so that you can harass me based on what you know?
How about a battered wife looking for a way out of her marriage, and a husband who clams to be able to read whatever she writes? (for the record, this really happened to someone I know, but luckily she's free of him now)
There will always be cases where you don't want people to know what you're doing. Many of these cases are legitimate interests in preserving mere privacy, and some are because there really is avoiding oppression.
I think the model of "pay per play" is on the way out, and needs to be seen as advertising. Since the quality of an internet "radio" stream is so low, bands could encourage those broadcasting their work to include contact or purchasing info in the metadata. After all, the only reason for an amateur disc jockey to play your song is because he loves your music, and wants to help you get more attention.
All of the "stations" I listen to are amateur efforts, with no revenues, advertising or anything similar. I also like listening to podcasts, downloading them onto my iPod (something that's not as easy with internet "radio". If a song is presented that I like, then I'll make an effort to buy a higher quality version. I do believe in supporting the performers, but I refuse to support those who treat me with suspicion.
The internet isn't a live music bar as much as a street corner. Stop trying to charge a cover charge to even get in, and don't be ashamed to place your hat in front of you. If you do charge, then justify that charge (like the better acoustics and comfort of the club compared to the street corner).
The post you responded to was inaccurate in that it was too generalising. Over here in Germany, for example, the police often put up blatant traffic cameras on notorious stretches, those which have suffered a high amount of accidents. After a week or two the revenues earned goes down dramatically, but so does the amount of accidents. Since the lost revenue is less then the increased expense of responding to an accident (not to mention the intangible price of a human life!), the planners leave that road on heavy rotation. I suspect that sometimes the cameras are placed but not "armed", simply to act as a deterrent.
But we've drifted far, far from the topic of an nongovernment cartel abusing police resources. A "speeding trap" is not all that analogue to the heavy-handed scare tactics the RIAA is now engaging in, destroying whatever sympathy any artist might have felt for them before.
That is why I don't enjoy many computer RPG's: they don't have any way to skip over or to simply claim GM fiat. I would play GURPS, and often the players would agree from the beginning of a campaign what point levels the characters should have. We also were story-driven, so earning character points (GURPS' analogue to D&D's XP) wasn't as important as learning more about the world and the plot.
I think the arcade game mentality plays just as much of a role, where you collect bigger guns and special effects to beef up your wimpy little ship. Game designers are too focused on rewards and "earning the good stuff" so that when the story line hits, you're already bored. I would welcome a game where the players start off powerful but ignorant of the world, and as their weapons slowly degrade and run out of ammo the player is forced to use more cunning, where characters don't advance from young neophyte to master warrior in the space of days (or even hours!).
Actually, encoding DRM on-the-fly isn't that crazy, since the DRM scheme means each customer has an individual key. Pre-coded DRM means every user has the same key, and that would defeat the purpose of DRM. Therefore the files are stored unencrypted, and aren't encrypted until purchase with the customer's key.
Adding a flag to the backend file might be feasible, but if it hiccups then Apple is at risk of angering either the customer ("This was supposed to be DRM-free! What gives?") or the studio bosses ("How dare you let those kids get a DRM-Free version of Madonna?!?"). If I was Steve Jobs I'd avoid investing the time implementing this and push for ditching DRM as well.
Apple hates DRM because it's an arms race that sucks up resources. Programmers that could be working on cool code are stuck ensuring that FairPlay doesn't get cracked, and that they get a patch up within the time framed dictated by their contract. Without DRM, the iPod and iTunes codebases could be trimmed to run faster and possibly even allow for the API to be published.
From what others have written, the issue seems to be more that Apple stores the songs without DRM in its database, encrypting them only when the customer downloads. Apple probably instead refuses to invest the programming hours to come up with a solution that flags whether encryption is required or not, since it also means ensuring that there are no mistakes (songs unencrypted where the distributor demands DRM, or DRM added to a song that was supposed to be free, or retroactive release from DRM).
I think Apple resents having to program DRM in the first place, since it eats up programming resources and complicates the software in a way that does not benefit the computer nor the user. It does nothing for Apple, but without it the Big Four would have walked away.
The sad part is how the RIAA tried to spin Steve Jobs' rejection of Solution #2 as an offer to open FairPlay to other stores. This is a cartel that needs to be disbanded for the harm it now does to all sides. They blithely ignore that Steve was declaring that Apple would never do that because they would make themselves liable for devices beyond their control and would need to divert too many programmers from other tasks.
It's all about the DRM. They don't want anybody intercepting the unencrypted data, Mac or not. Microsoft is simply getting paranoid about people circumventing their oh-so-elaborate lockdown through the addition of a VM that they are panicking.
It's all bollocks, anyways. The hackers sneer at the EULA and those who bother reading it aren't your average circumventers (or optionally see the EULA as unenforceable and nonlegal). They may hope to encourage more sales of the high-priced versions, but in the end I suspect it will just hurt overall sales.
As a parent, I have to disagree on the strongest terms. The current system is broken not only because it often makes mistakes in the evaluation, but also because children learn in spurts. "Slow" learners can often have a huge spurt when that "aha!" moment comes. But you know what? The greatest sin of the current system is that it enforces a stagnation in social class: who your parents are plays a huge role in what school you're allowed to attend. The teachers will secretly set quotas out of fear that the "better" schools will get swamped, or (in our case) because they don't want their school shut down when the Hauptschule gets shut down/consolidated due to too few students.
I have seen this as a parent; thankfully my daughter beat the report from her elementary teacher that she was "a little dumb" and is now a top student in her Gymnasium class. I have also seen it from the teacher's POV, as my wife is a teacher in a Realschule, and is often upset by the attitudes of her tenured colleagues.
Sorry, drifting way off topic, I know, but this is an issue I care deeply about.
No. Or to put it another way, any evidence found that way would be inadmissible in court. Therefore any responsible Staatsanwalt (analogue to American district attorney) would avoid it for fear it would weaken his case.
The only possible solution would be to treat it like an "anonymous tip", but even that would be scrutinised.
I'm an American, but I've been living here in Germany ever since I left the US Army in 1990. Some points I agree with, some seem to be more of a myth, however.
Bureaucracy in Germany is like much of the EU: there are regulations for almost anything. This does, however, have a silver lining as that means less legal battles. The courts aren't as bogged down since there are less "grey areas", so legal insurance is a lot cheaper. Some companies are returning to Germany because of the high cost of legal battles elsewhere.
Architecture is improving in Germany, as the butt-ugly buildings get torn down to make way for more modern structures. I would say that most larger cities now have spent a great deal to make their centres attractive pedestrian zones.
Car craziness in Germany is different than in the USA, but not any worse. The SUV remains an exotic animal, and fuel efficiency is playing a larger role. Move into the cities like Munich, and a car becomes a liability due to the lack of parking and the net of public transportation. That said, the sons of my neighbour spend incredible amounts of time washing and cleaning their cars, caring for them more than for their girlfriends. The elder one actually presses his GF into vacuuming the upholstery with him!
Social Welfare in Germany is still better than elsewhere, but it's also seen as a burden. Germans are born worrywarts, and the low birth rate means that the ratio of retirees to wage-earners is like a Sword of Damocles. The reforms currently being enacted are painful, mainly because for the first time social benefits are being cut, not expanded.
Education in Germany has one huge, huge problem, and that is the way it divides pupils at age 10-12. Starting then, children are stuck into one of the three secondary schools: the Gymnasium for future academics, the Realschule for vocational careers, and the Hauptschule for the rest. As a result, those kids that have the misfortune to only attend a Hauptschule will later have an uphill battle to get a decent job, and it's incredibly difficult to switch paths. The Hauptschule has become the school for "losers".
Human Rights, though, is one area where modern Germans are especially proud. Despite what the occasional beer hall pundit might say, only a tiny minority is really for the death penalty. Germans instead see themselves as better than the "barbarian" American justice system mainly because they don't have a death penalty. Human rights activists have more clout and respect in Germany than in any other country I have lived in.
Privacy was after the Nazi regime a sore point with Germans. That's why this case was so important, as it represented the digital equivalent of a secret search warrant. Germans are also leery of video surveillance, and those measure already installed in train stations and other public places have to follow strict rules. Herr Schäuble's populist clamour for new laws is not even supported by the police, as the current laws still allow for snooping in the internet, just not on the suspect's hard drive without his knowledge.
I think Bill Hicks was only pissed that nobody met his price to do commercials. Besides, ranting against the "sell-outs" has always been an easy way to establish your indie credentials.
Look, to clarify: it's not the iPod that has been found illegal, but the iTunes Store. In the eyes of the Norwegians, it sells in a form of DRM that is restricted to only one portable music player manufacturer. WMA-based stores have either been too small to notice or have gotten away with Microsoft arguing (to paraphrase): "Well, Apple is free to license DRM-enabled WMA from us at any time." Apparently they didn't accept like France did that it could easily be circumvented through burning to a CD and recompressing.
Now, if Apple does open the FairPlay license to other hardware manufacturers (it's already semi-open, based on the Fraunhofer MP4/AAC compression and technology from Veridisc), in theory it could be easily ported to any QuickTime-supporting appliance.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the problem with the business model, in that you're not supporting the artist but the producer. The artists and the studio crew are often paid for their services beforehand, and the producer then tries to recoup his investment. It's a gambling bet, more or less, and one that the labels have tweaked to their advantage. Only the heavyweight artists manage to get a cut, really, and even then the labels game the contracts, doing their best to con the artist.
This also ignores such sticky issues as artists who cannot be reached, or those who have broken up, whose label no longer exists and have their rights stuck in limbo. If you think you're supporting the artist by buying their album years after its release, you're only fooling yourself.
Look, if you want to support an artist, go to their concerts, buy their merchandise directly from them, or do the internet equivalent of dropping a coin in their hat. Buying the album only helps the label, not the artist.
You are using the analogy is ways it isn't supposed to be used. It isn't an analogy of how security systems work, but in how the manufacturer deals with the issue instead of the customer. If (for example) Microsoft had better designed their product, there wouldn't be such a need for security that had to be bolted on afterwards. I shouldn't have to buy my car door locks separately from my car, so why should I have to even consider which security suite to buy for my laptop?
Aw, forget it. I'm going to get a MacBook.
No, if our buildings were built securely, we wouldn't have to keep hiring locksmiths and alarm systems contractors to reconfigure everything after we bought the damn place. If the doors weren't so flimsy, I wouldn't have to buy replacement doors. If the walls were better insulated, I wouldn't have to buy that ugly thermal siding.
If my computer's OS wasn't so full of loopholes and vulnerabilities, I wouldn't need to install 3rd-party security software.
I don't think that was the point. The point was that the security industry has been holding back out-of-the-box security, mostly due to self-interest. If systems were designed at the core level to be more secure, there would be less need for after-market security measures.
To use an analogy, it's as if the locksmiths had convinced us all that we need to buy our car keys and anti-theft systems from them because automobile manufacturers are reluctant to add door locks.
Let's put this a different way: how big is the market for putting tougher locks on automobiles? Of course they still get stolen, and there used to be a pretty good market for after-market car alarms, but most cars have good enough of a security system (in the opinion of their owners, that is). Most computers, though, if they were cars, have no locks on the doors, and it's far too easy to bypass the ignition key, steal the fuel, and so on.
I think that's what Mr. Schneier is getting at: most appliances and things we own have a reasonable amount of security out of the box, but not most computers. Standard security should be a concern addressed by the manufacturer, not the customer.
Another possibility is to have more than one crew module, attached to each other by habitrail-like tubes, spun on a common axis to generate artificial gravity. They should be far enough away to prevent nasty headaches and nausea from Coriolis forces within the modules themselves, and weighted enough so that all astronauts could enter one module without disrupting balance too much.
The crews chosen should be allowed to choose their own partners themselves beforehand. Sure, the shrinks could say that Brad and Janet make an ideal pair, but what if Brad already is smitten with Magenta, who will be on the next mission? I say let the astronauts choose for themselves.
What if one of the crew members goes nuts? The habitrail structure means that in a worst-case, one of the modules could be made into a brig. The crew must be able to police itself, then, and stable enough to accept the partner of the locked-up to shack up with one of the other pairs. Perhaps they would like to swap partners, or segregate to male and female-only modules. It should be up to them (and most likely they would experiment to relieve the boredom).
A side thought: remember also that they won't be able to IM with Earth, due to the distances involved and the speed of light. The closer they get to Mars, the longer the lag between message and response. Still, they should be able to download entertainment of any sort, have any movie or song they wish uploaded to their iPod-equivalents. Let them watch porn if they want to!
In all seriousness, the ship really should be designed to use centrifugal force as an artificial gravity, as it would solve many long-term health problems. Sure, it will make construction costs skyrocket, adding many more moving parts, but it still seems better than the alternatives. In fact, most serious designs that I have seen involve some version of this.
It took me quite a while to figure out what you were talking about. I mean, you refer to Mac OS X as MAC, which is a common error, but then you also mention SAN, leading me to believe that you might have meant the MAC-address causing problems after all. In the end, though, I realised you probably were just venting a personal prejudice based on hearsay. Oh well...
This ought to be under "humour", not "apple". It's best to treat Dvorak's position in computer news as similar to that which Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore have in politics: opinionated punits, looking to yank chains, and all too willing to make shit up in the name of ratings. Never, ever consider him an expert. He's just an entertainer.
Actually, I think the whole point was that people prefer to have channels for their creativity. I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder, but you wise guys can rest assured I also have 1st and 2nd edition AD&D books too!), and when presented with too much room to be creative I get pulled in all directions and get nowhere. Defining a channel or breaking a task into manageable parts lets me burst free. Think of it like how the energy of a ripple in an open pond rapidly disperses, but in a channel it retains its force as a soliton wave much longer.
So yeah, I agree with the opinion. I just think it's not the obstacle that's the draw, but simply that it's a focus, or a reference point. All that energy now has a direction and isn't simply dissipating. Huge tasks where the goals are "over the horizon" are simply too daunting.
Let me try to clarify a couple of things:
The thing about surfing without your superior's knowledge is that it reduces friction at the workplace. It won't result in firing (at least not at first), but it will pollute the atmosphere when non-work interests collide. It's best to simply avoid rather than confront at times. It's not about avoiding oppression, but avoiding potential aggravation.
The battered wife case turned out for the better mainly because we were able to co-ordinate her escape through the web. Anonymisers, IM clients and Skype all played a role. We found her a shelter and a lawyer through surfing, and we managed to get her and her children out without her husband ever getting a clue.
Naturally, the web isn't 100% private, nor do I expect to eliminate oppression totally. But any steps I can take to reduce oppression are worthwhile. And yes, I do mean oppression and worries about my fellow man as much as I do about the government. It's the overly zealous IT department that bans Corbis and Getty Images due to nudity that is just as much oppression as a government that tries to trace my steps. As long as there are lazy fools, we will need ways to circumvent them.
(By the way, what fool decided to block Corbis? We're an ad agency, damn it, and we purchase royalty-free pics from them all the time! Aaargh!)
Have you considered that there might be political reasons? Let's say I work for a rabid Bush supporter, do I want him to know that I'm a regular on the Daily Kos even though it's not forbidden to go there on my lunch break? Do I want my ISP to know what sort of games I like to play at home? Do I want you to see all of my browsing habits so that you can harass me based on what you know?
How about a battered wife looking for a way out of her marriage, and a husband who clams to be able to read whatever she writes? (for the record, this really happened to someone I know, but luckily she's free of him now)
There will always be cases where you don't want people to know what you're doing. Many of these cases are legitimate interests in preserving mere privacy, and some are because there really is avoiding oppression.
I think the model of "pay per play" is on the way out, and needs to be seen as advertising. Since the quality of an internet "radio" stream is so low, bands could encourage those broadcasting their work to include contact or purchasing info in the metadata. After all, the only reason for an amateur disc jockey to play your song is because he loves your music, and wants to help you get more attention.
All of the "stations" I listen to are amateur efforts, with no revenues, advertising or anything similar. I also like listening to podcasts, downloading them onto my iPod (something that's not as easy with internet "radio". If a song is presented that I like, then I'll make an effort to buy a higher quality version. I do believe in supporting the performers, but I refuse to support those who treat me with suspicion.
The internet isn't a live music bar as much as a street corner. Stop trying to charge a cover charge to even get in, and don't be ashamed to place your hat in front of you. If you do charge, then justify that charge (like the better acoustics and comfort of the club compared to the street corner).
Actually, it may be easier since Europe uses GSM, and 3G here is UMTS (which is more or less GSM on steroids).
The post you responded to was inaccurate in that it was too generalising. Over here in Germany, for example, the police often put up blatant traffic cameras on notorious stretches, those which have suffered a high amount of accidents. After a week or two the revenues earned goes down dramatically, but so does the amount of accidents. Since the lost revenue is less then the increased expense of responding to an accident (not to mention the intangible price of a human life!), the planners leave that road on heavy rotation. I suspect that sometimes the cameras are placed but not "armed", simply to act as a deterrent.
But we've drifted far, far from the topic of an nongovernment cartel abusing police resources. A "speeding trap" is not all that analogue to the heavy-handed scare tactics the RIAA is now engaging in, destroying whatever sympathy any artist might have felt for them before.
That is why I don't enjoy many computer RPG's: they don't have any way to skip over or to simply claim GM fiat. I would play GURPS, and often the players would agree from the beginning of a campaign what point levels the characters should have. We also were story-driven, so earning character points (GURPS' analogue to D&D's XP) wasn't as important as learning more about the world and the plot.
I think the arcade game mentality plays just as much of a role, where you collect bigger guns and special effects to beef up your wimpy little ship. Game designers are too focused on rewards and "earning the good stuff" so that when the story line hits, you're already bored. I would welcome a game where the players start off powerful but ignorant of the world, and as their weapons slowly degrade and run out of ammo the player is forced to use more cunning, where characters don't advance from young neophyte to master warrior in the space of days (or even hours!).
Actually, encoding DRM on-the-fly isn't that crazy, since the DRM scheme means each customer has an individual key. Pre-coded DRM means every user has the same key, and that would defeat the purpose of DRM. Therefore the files are stored unencrypted, and aren't encrypted until purchase with the customer's key.
Adding a flag to the backend file might be feasible, but if it hiccups then Apple is at risk of angering either the customer ("This was supposed to be DRM-free! What gives?") or the studio bosses ("How dare you let those kids get a DRM-Free version of Madonna?!?"). If I was Steve Jobs I'd avoid investing the time implementing this and push for ditching DRM as well.
Apple hates DRM because it's an arms race that sucks up resources. Programmers that could be working on cool code are stuck ensuring that FairPlay doesn't get cracked, and that they get a patch up within the time framed dictated by their contract. Without DRM, the iPod and iTunes codebases could be trimmed to run faster and possibly even allow for the API to be published.
From what others have written, the issue seems to be more that Apple stores the songs without DRM in its database, encrypting them only when the customer downloads. Apple probably instead refuses to invest the programming hours to come up with a solution that flags whether encryption is required or not, since it also means ensuring that there are no mistakes (songs unencrypted where the distributor demands DRM, or DRM added to a song that was supposed to be free, or retroactive release from DRM).
I think Apple resents having to program DRM in the first place, since it eats up programming resources and complicates the software in a way that does not benefit the computer nor the user. It does nothing for Apple, but without it the Big Four would have walked away.
The sad part is how the RIAA tried to spin Steve Jobs' rejection of Solution #2 as an offer to open FairPlay to other stores. This is a cartel that needs to be disbanded for the harm it now does to all sides. They blithely ignore that Steve was declaring that Apple would never do that because they would make themselves liable for devices beyond their control and would need to divert too many programmers from other tasks.
It's all about the DRM. They don't want anybody intercepting the unencrypted data, Mac or not. Microsoft is simply getting paranoid about people circumventing their oh-so-elaborate lockdown through the addition of a VM that they are panicking.
It's all bollocks, anyways. The hackers sneer at the EULA and those who bother reading it aren't your average circumventers (or optionally see the EULA as unenforceable and nonlegal). They may hope to encourage more sales of the high-priced versions, but in the end I suspect it will just hurt overall sales.
As a parent, I have to disagree on the strongest terms. The current system is broken not only because it often makes mistakes in the evaluation, but also because children learn in spurts. "Slow" learners can often have a huge spurt when that "aha!" moment comes. But you know what? The greatest sin of the current system is that it enforces a stagnation in social class: who your parents are plays a huge role in what school you're allowed to attend. The teachers will secretly set quotas out of fear that the "better" schools will get swamped, or (in our case) because they don't want their school shut down when the Hauptschule gets shut down/consolidated due to too few students.
I have seen this as a parent; thankfully my daughter beat the report from her elementary teacher that she was "a little dumb" and is now a top student in her Gymnasium class. I have also seen it from the teacher's POV, as my wife is a teacher in a Realschule, and is often upset by the attitudes of her tenured colleagues.
Sorry, drifting way off topic, I know, but this is an issue I care deeply about.
No. Or to put it another way, any evidence found that way would be inadmissible in court. Therefore any responsible Staatsanwalt (analogue to American district attorney) would avoid it for fear it would weaken his case.
The only possible solution would be to treat it like an "anonymous tip", but even that would be scrutinised.
I'm an American, but I've been living here in Germany ever since I left the US Army in 1990. Some points I agree with, some seem to be more of a myth, however.
Bureaucracy in Germany is like much of the EU: there are regulations for almost anything. This does, however, have a silver lining as that means less legal battles. The courts aren't as bogged down since there are less "grey areas", so legal insurance is a lot cheaper. Some companies are returning to Germany because of the high cost of legal battles elsewhere.
Architecture is improving in Germany, as the butt-ugly buildings get torn down to make way for more modern structures. I would say that most larger cities now have spent a great deal to make their centres attractive pedestrian zones.
Car craziness in Germany is different than in the USA, but not any worse. The SUV remains an exotic animal, and fuel efficiency is playing a larger role. Move into the cities like Munich, and a car becomes a liability due to the lack of parking and the net of public transportation. That said, the sons of my neighbour spend incredible amounts of time washing and cleaning their cars, caring for them more than for their girlfriends. The elder one actually presses his GF into vacuuming the upholstery with him!
Social Welfare in Germany is still better than elsewhere, but it's also seen as a burden. Germans are born worrywarts, and the low birth rate means that the ratio of retirees to wage-earners is like a Sword of Damocles. The reforms currently being enacted are painful, mainly because for the first time social benefits are being cut, not expanded.
Education in Germany has one huge, huge problem, and that is the way it divides pupils at age 10-12. Starting then, children are stuck into one of the three secondary schools: the Gymnasium for future academics, the Realschule for vocational careers, and the Hauptschule for the rest. As a result, those kids that have the misfortune to only attend a Hauptschule will later have an uphill battle to get a decent job, and it's incredibly difficult to switch paths. The Hauptschule has become the school for "losers".
Human Rights, though, is one area where modern Germans are especially proud. Despite what the occasional beer hall pundit might say, only a tiny minority is really for the death penalty. Germans instead see themselves as better than the "barbarian" American justice system mainly because they don't have a death penalty. Human rights activists have more clout and respect in Germany than in any other country I have lived in.
Privacy was after the Nazi regime a sore point with Germans. That's why this case was so important, as it represented the digital equivalent of a secret search warrant. Germans are also leery of video surveillance, and those measure already installed in train stations and other public places have to follow strict rules. Herr Schäuble's populist clamour for new laws is not even supported by the police, as the current laws still allow for snooping in the internet, just not on the suspect's hard drive without his knowledge.
I think Bill Hicks was only pissed that nobody met his price to do commercials. Besides, ranting against the "sell-outs" has always been an easy way to establish your indie credentials.
Oh my, I wonder how many people will think of that when they do "that new digital camera from Japan" cute girl spot...
Look, to clarify: it's not the iPod that has been found illegal, but the iTunes Store. In the eyes of the Norwegians, it sells in a form of DRM that is restricted to only one portable music player manufacturer. WMA-based stores have either been too small to notice or have gotten away with Microsoft arguing (to paraphrase): "Well, Apple is free to license DRM-enabled WMA from us at any time." Apparently they didn't accept like France did that it could easily be circumvented through burning to a CD and recompressing.
Now, if Apple does open the FairPlay license to other hardware manufacturers (it's already semi-open, based on the Fraunhofer MP4/AAC compression and technology from Veridisc), in theory it could be easily ported to any QuickTime-supporting appliance.