DRM which prevents me from playing music in my chosen music player is not exactly something I think I'm going to fail to notice.
It doesn't prevent it: It makes it inconvenient.
If you want to supply me with music, video, images, or text you do so using an open standard I can use in my choice of system, sans arbitary, pointless and impossible to enforce technical restrictions, or you supply me with nothing at all.
So you don't buy DVDs nor videogames. Good for you.
Actually you can't burn any of their music. My car stereo will play MP3 CDs. Apple won't provide that format, and instead you have to write out to audio cd and then re-rip as MP3.
You what in the who now?
So you say that you cannot write to CD. And you complain that when you do write to CD, they only have one option to burn it to CD audio. And you aren't bothered by your own contradictions?
"DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable."
So, since there isn't any DRM that doesn't infringe on fair use, is none of it acceptable?
Well, yes. But ironically, I have a game console and I use it to both watch DVDs and play videogames. Now, there's DRM all over, so since I paid good money for these things, I clearly accepted it. But I don't like it. It has gotten in the way of my fair use: Had to circumvented the DRM in order to simply WATCH it! That shouldn't happen.
if a company wants to sell me something, yet wants to put restrictions on that thing, then I am not likely to buy. [...] (I haven't bought a CD in years, and a DVD in months.)
DVDs have restrictive DRM on them. Region coding, Macromedia copy protection, anti-skip commands over the redundant parts of their introduction sequences, you name it.
I'd accept DRM when it wouldn't restrict my fair use. That will never happen
There's a law that makes fair use legal. Maybe there should be a law that makes it illegal to remove your ability to exercise your fair use right.
manufacturers and content providers are using DRM to lock people into their proprietary platforms and distribution networks (whilst claiming to use it to combat piracy).
There used to be different formats of wax cylinders. If you wanted to listen to a recording, you had to have the right player. Same for light bulbs I believe. It is in businessmen's nature to try these kinds of things. It's why I don't trust libertarians... they seem to think that businessmen's interest are the same as public interest, when all evidence points to the contrary.
And claiming to combat piracy, well, you have to claim high ideals when making a money grab. You're doing it for the children, to prevent terrorism, to liberate the oppressed, to fight pirates. It's smoke and mirror, and depressingly effective.
I do feel "DRM in any form is ridiculous". It's that simple.
But the owners love it! So unless you're planning a glorious uprising of the working classes, then we'd better get used to it.
The DRM I'm willing to accept os the DRM that I won't even notice. Like the one on the iTMS seem to be. I never bought any of their wares, but from the list, I could burn any of my music, and move is to another computer without problems.
DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable.
But seriously, did they do market research and figure out that the public most likely to pay for TV content is people who watch car shows? Why that show?
Who the hell is gonna buy a car review? Seriously? Who's got that money just beurning in their pocket and an unrellenting need to see a guy talk about a car on his computer screen?
Heinlein's argument was that people should serve in order to rule. I don't think that's fascism.
Main Entry: fascism Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story?
How did they not tell the story? They left stuff out: the powersuits, the talking dogs (although there was a dead dog and a very upset and angry man there), the tall grey skinny humanoid aliens (you can see them, the bugs AND the powersuits in a computer game that shall remain nameless)... But it's still the same basic story of Rico's rise through the military as he kills the bugs that killed his family.
I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie.
I saw the movie first, for free, at a premiere, and I loved it.
I only had seen the very first teaser (wich was mostly the bugs storming the base and the troopers looking scared). From then on I knew I wanted to see that movie, and I therefore avoided any exposure to it's source or promotional material. I had read other books by Heinlein, I knew he good write good sci-fi, and I knew that the director was the guy for a gory war movie.
So I saw the action movie, I liked. Then I read the book, and I liked that too. I think it's the safest way to enjoy both.
Starship Troopers is a good movie. It is NOT, however, a faithfull adaptation of the book. It didn't even start as such. It started as a "hey, let's make a movie about soldiers shooting up giant bugs!" project, someone mentioned that there was a really good Heinlein book on that theme, and they got the gang from Robocop to make it into a movie.
So, you have pretty much the same story: A future where humanity lives united under a single government run by the military. A young rich kid enrolls into the mobile infantry to earn the right to vote, since in that world citizen and veteran means the same thing. A giant asteroid destroys the boy's home town, the government declares war on the space bugs, things explode, people die, and we learn that the common soldier is a brave and resourcefull man of honour and discipline.
None of the things I've heard as negatives about the movie made any sense. I've heard people say that it's a bad thing that everyone at the school and in the barracks is young and pretty. But the movie explains that there is a program of selective breeding enforced by the military government: It's easier to get a baby liscence if you go through the mortally dangerous basic training and do your term of service. Have you SEEN their training?
I've heard that it's a bad thing that they changed things from the book. The book is from the FIFTIES! Its politics are outdated. You can't have a movie where it says that in the future women won't be allowed in the military. You could get away with that kind of thing before Star Trek, but not since.
Starship Trooper was a good action movie based off a good sci-fi book. With good SFX, pretty people, impressive explosions, the works. It had clever little propaganda movies mixed up with news shows, it had lots of cool futuristic details. It also happened to have an ironic message about fascism, a lot of people missed that, unortunatly.
What's your secret? Watching it dead drunk? The made-for-tv thing bore me. The 1984 movie is confusing as hell, but at least it's confusing in a vey entertaining way.
I'm a conservative and almost every cool geeky work, whether it be music, movies, art, or anything else, is of the opposite beliefs as mine. Its hard to reconcile. For instance, every band I go to see usually gives some sort of political speech and I have to wait through it before I hear the music. A lot of movie stars that I enjoy seeing hate my beliefs too. As a matter of fact, its almost always more likely the opposite.
All your beliefs are wrong. Please adjust your worldview accordingly.
A lot of people in the 'geek community' that gave this book rave reviews and SF awards also had childhood experiences similar to Ender's, where they were used for various selfish purposes by the adults in their life.
I thought you were gonna say "... where they kicked another boy to death after school" there for a second.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no doubt that one day they'll prevent the above completely.
So you preemptively blame them for something you think they might do.
Check for DUPES
What makes you think they haven't simply decided to do a dupe?
Lots of people loaded a bunch of ads the last time. Maybe they'll do it again!
DRM which prevents me from playing music in my chosen music player is not exactly something I think I'm going to fail to notice.
It doesn't prevent it: It makes it inconvenient.
If you want to supply me with music, video, images, or text you do so using an open standard I can use in my choice of system, sans arbitary, pointless and impossible to enforce technical restrictions, or you supply me with nothing at all.
So you don't buy DVDs nor videogames. Good for you.
I think this is one of the few threads I have read that has,IMO, used Hitler without invoking Godwin
He compared DRM to the invasion of Polland.
You forgot Polland!
Actually you can't burn any of their music. My car stereo will play MP3 CDs. Apple won't provide that format, and instead you have to write out to audio cd and then re-rip as MP3.
You what in the who now?
So you say that you cannot write to CD. And you complain that when you do write to CD, they only have one option to burn it to CD audio. And you aren't bothered by your own contradictions?
"DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable."
So, since there isn't any DRM that doesn't infringe on fair use, is none of it acceptable?
Well, yes. But ironically, I have a game console and I use it to both watch DVDs and play videogames. Now, there's DRM all over, so since I paid good money for these things, I clearly accepted it. But I don't like it. It has gotten in the way of my fair use: Had to circumvented the DRM in order to simply WATCH it! That shouldn't happen.
DRM is all about restricting fair use.
What about unfair uses?
The copyright holders love it, not the owners.
They see themselves as owners.
if a company wants to sell me something, yet wants to put restrictions on that thing, then I am not likely to buy. [...] (I haven't bought a CD in years, and a DVD in months.)
DVDs have restrictive DRM on them.
Region coding, Macromedia copy protection, anti-skip commands over the redundant parts of their introduction sequences, you name it.
But, we can't keep away, can we?
Great attitude. I suppose we all may as well have gotten used to Hitler too
And we have achieved Godwin in the first sentence of your reply! Magnificent!
I'd accept DRM when it wouldn't restrict my fair use. That will never happen
There's a law that makes fair use legal. Maybe there should be a law that makes it illegal to remove your ability to exercise your fair use right.
manufacturers and content providers are using DRM to lock people into their proprietary platforms and distribution networks (whilst claiming to use it to combat piracy).
There used to be different formats of wax cylinders. If you wanted to listen to a recording, you had to have the right player. Same for light bulbs I believe. It is in businessmen's nature to try these kinds of things. It's why I don't trust libertarians... they seem to think that businessmen's interest are the same as public interest, when all evidence points to the contrary.
And claiming to combat piracy, well, you have to claim high ideals when making a money grab. You're doing it for the children, to prevent terrorism, to liberate the oppressed, to fight pirates. It's smoke and mirror, and depressingly effective.
What about the fact that DRM allows Napster to offer an excellent service like Napster-to-Go?
Couldn't care less.
Or how about DRM allows video producers to have a video be playable only from their web site and for a certain amount of time before it expires?
That is stupid. The thing will be slashdotted within seconds and there will be no way to have mirrors or torrents up.
I do feel "DRM in any form is ridiculous". It's that simple.
But the owners love it!
So unless you're planning a glorious uprising of the working classes, then we'd better get used to it.
The DRM I'm willing to accept os the DRM that I won't even notice. Like the one on the iTMS seem to be. I never bought any of their wares, but from the list, I could burn any of my music, and move is to another computer without problems.
DRM that doesn't get in the way of fair use is acceptable.
his mod points, which he uses to troll.
That doesn't make any sense.
But, you are MY little bitch.
classy
Is there still an animatronic robot Bill Nye talking about dinosaurs and fossil fuels at Disney World?
But seriously, did they do market research and figure out that the public most likely to pay for TV content is people who watch car shows? Why that show?
Who the hell is gonna buy a car review?
Seriously? Who's got that money just beurning in their pocket and an unrellenting need to see a guy talk about a car on his computer screen?
Heinlein's argument was that people should serve in order to rule. I don't think that's fascism.
Main Entry: fascism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Why associate it with the Heinlein book, if you're not going to tell Heinlein's story?
How did they not tell the story? They left stuff out: the powersuits, the talking dogs (although there was a dead dog and a very upset and angry man there), the tall grey skinny humanoid aliens (you can see them, the bugs AND the powersuits in a computer game that shall remain nameless)... But it's still the same basic story of Rico's rise through the military as he kills the bugs that killed his family.
You figured it out!
Do I get a cookie?
I called it "Spaceship Soldiers" in my mind to differentiate it. I almost maintained my doublethink enough to enjoy the movie.
I saw the movie first, for free, at a premiere, and I loved it.
I only had seen the very first teaser (wich was mostly the bugs storming the base and the troopers looking scared).
From then on I knew I wanted to see that movie, and I therefore avoided any exposure to it's source or promotional material. I had read other books by Heinlein, I knew he good write good sci-fi, and I knew that the director was the guy for a gory war movie.
So I saw the action movie, I liked. Then I read the book, and I liked that too.
I think it's the safest way to enjoy both.
Starship Troopers is a good movie.
It is NOT, however, a faithfull adaptation of the book. It didn't even start as such. It started as a "hey, let's make a movie about soldiers shooting up giant bugs!" project, someone mentioned that there was a really good Heinlein book on that theme, and they got the gang from Robocop to make it into a movie.
So, you have pretty much the same story: A future where humanity lives united under a single government run by the military. A young rich kid enrolls into the mobile infantry to earn the right to vote, since in that world citizen and veteran means the same thing.
A giant asteroid destroys the boy's home town, the government declares war on the space bugs, things explode, people die, and we learn that the common soldier is a brave and resourcefull man of honour and discipline.
None of the things I've heard as negatives about the movie made any sense. I've heard people say that it's a bad thing that everyone at the school and in the barracks is young and pretty. But the movie explains that there is a program of selective breeding enforced by the military government: It's easier to get a baby liscence if you go through the mortally dangerous basic training and do your term of service. Have you SEEN their training?
I've heard that it's a bad thing that they changed things from the book. The book is from the FIFTIES! Its politics are outdated. You can't have a movie where it says that in the future women won't be allowed in the military. You could get away with that kind of thing before Star Trek, but not since.
Starship Trooper was a good action movie based off a good sci-fi book. With good SFX, pretty people, impressive explosions, the works. It had clever little propaganda movies mixed up with news shows, it had lots of cool futuristic details. It also happened to have an ironic message about fascism, a lot of people missed that, unortunatly.
I really enjoyed the SciFi version. Good acting,
What's your secret? Watching it dead drunk?
The made-for-tv thing bore me. The 1984 movie is confusing as hell, but at least it's confusing in a vey entertaining way.
I'm a conservative and almost every cool geeky work, whether it be music, movies, art, or anything else, is of the opposite beliefs as mine. Its hard to reconcile.
For instance, every band I go to see usually gives some sort of political speech and I have to wait through it before I hear the music. A lot of movie stars that I enjoy seeing hate my beliefs too. As a matter of fact, its almost always more likely the opposite.
All your beliefs are wrong. Please adjust your worldview accordingly.
Sincerly,
Geekdom.
A lot of people in the 'geek community' that gave this book rave reviews and SF awards also had childhood experiences similar to Ender's, where they were used for various selfish purposes by the adults in their life.
I thought you were gonna say "... where they kicked another boy to death after school" there for a second.