"A better analogy could be made if Coke made their drinks evaporate the moment they enter a chemistry lab, to prevent rivals from copying the formula for manufacture and sale. Right or wrong, this is something they or any other tangible-goods company would do in a second if it wasn't in the realm of SF."
This is similar to the original analogy that I wrote, but changed it later to reflect how the music industry feels about sharing what you bought with your friends. The flaw in my analogy is that you cannot buy one Coke and have a bunch of friends drink it at the same time.
I think the idea got across, which was the main purpose of it.
"Don't try to make analogies to explain 'fair-use' intellecutal property laws using traditional goods-based economics. It just doesn't hold up."
Did you really need to be rude? Seriously, the analogy wasn't that weak. Only people trying to prove they're intelligent nitpick details and pretend they can't get the point because of them.
"Uh, mistaken belief. You do buy the right to listen to it, and in a restricted way"
I forgot something in my original post. I was talking about perception, not the legality of it. I should have phrased my statement better. The point of my post was that the RIAA claims that people won't pay for music, and they said that Apple was partly to blame. I was saying that if people think music is free then that is the RIAA's fault for playing them on the radio. When somebody goes to buy a CD, they don't THINK they're buying a license, they THINK they're buying convenience.
I did not make that clear at all, and I apologize.
"What do you think DVD Audio [dvdaudiopreview.com] and Super Audio CD [sonymusic.com] are?"
They're not marketing them very heavily. They need to do that before they can actually switch over. I have a feeling they're not doing that at all, they're just providing a premium service for the hardcore audiophiles out there.
Plus, I want the media to be smaller, not the same size. CD Players are rather large for my pocket.
Could somebody translate this into english for me?
My idea was to have the autorun program just eject the CD. You pop the CD in, and then it pops back out again. It'd be kind of like the PC gagging on it, hehe. I'm sure it'd take a while for the average user to know that disabling autorun'd turn off that behviour.
Both my DVD Rom and CD Burner have 'COMPACT DISC' on the drive. I wonder if a class action lawsuit would be possible under that circumstance. There ARE CD ROMS that play without needing the PC's intervention. If they crash those too, then technically they would be violating the CD standard.
The problem with joining a class action suit is that it'd make us look like we all listen to Celine Dione. *Shudder* I'd rather walk around wearing a shirt that reads "I am a virgin."
There's something different enough about the Nintendo DVD's that simply putting one into a DVD player won't make it instantly readable, but they could easily make a version of the GC that could play DVD's.
I wish I could explain it better to you, but it's been so long since I've read about it that I honestly couldn't tell you what all they did to protect them. Let's just say that anybody who manages to get data off the disk would have to have deep pockets to get the equipment they need.
Every time I post something that gets a bunch of +1's, there's some jackass that comes along and marks it overrrated. Normally I wouldn't pay attention to it, except it has happened on every single popular post I've made in the last 2 weeks. Is there some git running around marking everybody down?
Since when is suggesting a new idea overrrated? At least show yourself and tell me why!
Note: Just to be clear, I'm not worried about Karma, it just feels like somebody's following me around and marking me down just for shits and giggles. It'd be nice to know that maybe they at least have a point to it.
... is that it's waaaaaaay too easy to replicate. I think the RIAA chose a very bad product to produce if they are concerned about non-paid-for copies floating around.
All I have to do is download the lyrics and I could sing the song. Garage bands could easily do a nice rendition of the song that'd be worth listening to. As a matter of fact, re-mixes are quite popular out there. A lot of remixes don't even have elements of the original score in them. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They may be able to stop me from ripping a CD, but there's no way on Earth they could stop somebody from recording their own rendition of a song.
It seems to me that the RIAA is being rather unrealistic in their choice of products to make. I just don't see how they could expect to end all 'piracy' for good. The worst part is that they are blaming the wrong people.
For example, Eisner said that Apple was promoting piracy with their "Rip/Mix/Burn" campaign. His concern is that people will think that music is free and that they don't have to pay for it. But wait a minute, people were trading MP3's LONG before Apple was airing any commercials. If anybody thinks that music is free, its because it's played on the radio!
When the music is played on the radio, they're basically saying 'music is free, just enjoy it.'. That's part of what made it fun to go buy songs. What you were buying, then, was not the right to listen to it, but the convenience of listening to it whenever and wherever you want. CD's, at the time, were the best way to do it.
Then MP3's came along. Oopsie, the RIAA didn't stay on the ball, and now their business model that THEY CREATED is turning against them. The amusing thing is that they are playing the wrong hand to fight it. I can't believe they are actually surprised that people may think music is free. This is not a new occurance, this is what the RIAA taught them!
If they want to fight it, they need to come up with a MORE CONVENIENT solution, instead of trying to make it illegal. Underage smoking: Illegal, happens anyway. Underage drinking: Illegal, happens anwyay. Smoking pot: Illegal, happens anyway. Why on earth do they think they can stop it? What they're FAR better off doing is saying "You can buy MP3s (or a variant) from us! They're cheap, and you can download any song you want really really fast. Buy an album and get a discount."
Better yet, they'd find ways to make money through the channels people are using to get songs. What if they released an MP3 version of a song with one of the singers at the end saying 'Mention this code: JdWt when you buy the song and get $2 off the album purchase.'?
They have so many options they could use, but they chose the one where they piss EVERYBODY off. Nice.
The reason that cassettes are still available is that people like to listen to music in their cars. From a technology stand point, cassette is a better choice for a moving vehicle. Take that away, and the value of cassettes would be virtually nil. CD Players are dirt cheap and far better quality. It's certainly not because there are people who don't have CD Players out there.
In any case, part of what I was saying was that the 'new media' would be a higher quality than CD. The quality difference between CD and cassette is rather hard on the ears.
So, if Sony has enabled this 'protection' technology on the CD's, then they are (in theory) stopping 'pirates' from making unauthorized copies. Therefore, they are not losing as much money.
Shouldn't they at least reward us for our inconvenience? I mean if Sony said "Tell you what, because we've implemented this new 'protection' scheme, we'll knock $5 off the price of the CD."
If they're not doing that, how can the use the word protection? It's certainly not us they're protecting. They should use the word restriction at that point.
Tell you what, if Sony (or any other Music Label) were to take this approach, I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for them. I'm not sure it'd end my boycott, but it'd be a start. They took my music rights away, therefore the music has much less value. So why should the prices be the same? That gives them the image of being super evil.
"They did (maybe not directly), it's called DVD. It has a audio only format."
It may take a little hacking at, but I'm pretty sure somebody'll figure out a way (if they haven't already done so) to rip the audio off it.
"But even if they changed to a closed format and media, the problem would be that the instaled base of cd players, either in cars, stereos, etc, is way to big to let RIAA change from cds to that new media in a period less than a few millenia... Will still having to release a cd version..."
They have the same problem if they try to restrict the CD's. Then they have to deal with a much worse problem: Not everybody who has a CD player can play their music. If that's the case, who'd trust a flakey media? It'd be far better for the RIAA to say "here is a brand new media, it's higher quality and it's smaller." and get it proliferated out there.
They'd have to transition from CD's to this new media, but once it's done they've bought themselves some time. The music industry has changed media a few times now. Records... 8-track... cassettes... CD... They could do it again. They're about due for it anyway. People's needs have changed. People today are spending money in order to listen to other media, such as MP3's. If that market gets saturated, the RIAA is screwed. Their tactic of 'lets change law to force people to use our ancient business model' has little chance of success, and could very well mean that a new organization rises to take their place.
"how is preventing me to listen to a CD an incentive to buy it????"
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It'd be like Coca Cola making their drinks evaporate moments after they leave the can, that way nobody could pour the coke into a cup and sell it to somebody else.
I think the RIAA should just use new media for music and stop using CD's. It'd be really simple for them to use a media format not unlike Nintendo's GameCube media. Heck, with modern compression schemes, they could use a higher frequency range and put all kinds of other doodads in it to make it better than the modern CD.
The media wouldn't have a drive for PC's, and if they patent the technology then nobody could release a PC drive. The only recourse would be for for people to run a cable from the device to the PC to capture the music. No matter what kind of 'protection schemes' they create, they'll never get around the fact that the sound becomes analog at some point. At least this way, they make it less convenient to copy the music.
This would go a lot farther than trying to preemptively punish me for being a criminal.
If Sony wanted to be obnoxious, they could write a program that starts when Autorun is activated. It could cover the screen and say "YOU CANT PLAY THIS HERE!!!", and then send a signal to the CD ROM to eject the CD. When somebody puts it back in... and so on.
Yes, this would be easy to get around. But I'd far prefer that then causing a BSOD.
"One interesting point (and something I hope someone who understood the issue a bit more than I did at the time would comment on)... is Netscape claimed the W3C was going too slow. Instead of waiting for the new official standard, they simply implemented functionality that was being discussed for the new standard. The question is, did this forced the W3C to speed up their publication of new standards?"
I see what you're saying. You know what really pissed me off (and turned me into an Opera user)? It's when MS removed all support for 'Netscape Style Plugins' from IE6. Thus, anybody who makes a plugin that works on both Netscape and IE now has to make an ActiveX control.
This is a pretty clear example of MS screwing up the standards. I wish I had remembered this when I made my original post. I'd withdraw it now if I could.
The worst part is nobody really knows why MS pulled the support. A lot of people jumped to th conclusion that MS was just trying to put Netscape out of their misery. I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine said he read somewhere that there is a patent on running executables from a web page and that whoever owns it sued MS and won, but didn't sue Netscape or anybody else. Thus MS had to pull their support. Im not really sure if I believe this, but it is interesting that MS yanked support so suddenly. Beta versions of IE6 worked just fine with plug-ins. I don't think MS had planned that all along, I think the decision was made rather suddenly.
Whether or not they did it because they're evil or because they lost a lawsuit isn't relevant at this point. The fact that MS didn't provide a single reason as to why they made such a change is what bothers the hell out of me. The most I could get was 'for security reasons...'.
I see your point guys, wish I saw it before I started posting.
Internet Radio gone? That's a good thing..
on
Web Radio and the RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
Seems like a silly statement, doesn't it? I think the key to getting indepdenent artists out there (non-tainted by the RIAA) is dependent on themselves getting heard. If Internet Radio cannot play RIAA created songs, then the only music they can play will be made by the indies out there.
You know what this means?
a.) The RIAA can have all the copy protection they want. Assuming the indie artists don't follow suit (and I doubt they will), then it won't affect us.
b.) No more being bombarded by the RIAA's flavor of the week. BYE BYE BOY BANDS!!
c.) It is a LOT easier to get your indie song played to an audience. I don't think I could create a song that'd make it on anybody but a hobbyist station. But if they have to go with indies anyway, then it seems like anybody could sign up.
Suddenly, programs like Kazaa become a powerful marketing tool.
I've used IIS before and never had any traffic related problems. As a matter of fact, we only needed to reboot once. I don't think we got enough traffic to find out what it's limits were. We never thought we needed to upgrade, though.
The reason I'm not defending IIS is that we got that stupid Nimda virus. I was *mad* when I did rooting around the computer and figured out what happened. Turns out that Nimda took advantage of a few things that happened to be on that server, including Outlook Express, Media Player, and one other non-Webserver related program that I can't remember right now.
That was when I realized a couple of things:
1.) A webserver should only be a webserver, it should not be equipped to do things such as email. Damn Microsoft for that. It is for that reason alone that I'd be more than happy to climb the Linux learning curve to set up a websever.
2.) The best security is not obscurity or encryption, but uniqueness. The reason that the kiddie scripter was able to do damage to my machine was because he knew what would be on it and where. Well we won't have any luck this time around. CMD.exe has been renamed, Outlook has been configured to just not work anymore.
Could somebody get in afterwords? Well, nobody managed to that I know of. We're running Apache now so that's a moot point. IIS was a breeze to set up and get running. Heck, even tweaking it was super easy. Too bad I paid for that by being vulnerable to a general purpose attack.
If you scan back through my previous posts, you'll hear inklings along the lines of 'MS is no for servers', now you know why.
Part of me can't help but think that the real reason this industry is trying to encrypt the digital signal is so that VCR companies will have to pay them royalties. I don't think they care as much about what happens to their signal after it hits household TV's.
I'd be okay with royalty extortion, except they're trying to control what I do with the content. Well, I have a piece of advice for them. The minute that a TV show becomes too hard to watch because I refuse to be anchored to my TV day and night is the minute that I stop watching TV. I have plenty of things I could be off doing, TV is more of a luxury than anything else.
How do they seriously expect people to adopt Digital TV over Analog TV when they don't get the same priveledges they are used to? Hell, the reason I don't have Digital Cable right now is that my home-brew PVR can't work with it!
"At least know what the hell you are speaking of."
Have I used Windows Me? Nope. I stuck with Win2k. Lots of my friends, however, had lots of driver trouble with Windows Me. Seems unlikely WinMe would be such a bitch when 98 had been out so long.
Even if you're 100% right (and you may very well be) my point stands. The discussion was about interface, not how drivers work. Maybe YOU should know what the hell you're talking about before you correct somebody's detail so harshly.
Slashdot Mirror
"A better analogy could be made if Coke made their drinks evaporate the moment they enter a chemistry lab, to prevent rivals from copying the formula for manufacture and sale. Right or wrong, this is something they or any other tangible-goods company would do in a second if it wasn't in the realm of SF."
This is similar to the original analogy that I wrote, but changed it later to reflect how the music industry feels about sharing what you bought with your friends. The flaw in my analogy is that you cannot buy one Coke and have a bunch of friends drink it at the same time.
I think the idea got across, which was the main purpose of it.
"Don't try to make analogies to explain 'fair-use' intellecutal property laws using traditional goods-based economics. It just doesn't hold up."
Did you really need to be rude? Seriously, the analogy wasn't that weak. Only people trying to prove they're intelligent nitpick details and pretend they can't get the point because of them.
"Uh, mistaken belief. You do buy the right to listen to it, and in a restricted way"
I forgot something in my original post. I was talking about perception, not the legality of it. I should have phrased my statement better. The point of my post was that the RIAA claims that people won't pay for music, and they said that Apple was partly to blame. I was saying that if people think music is free then that is the RIAA's fault for playing them on the radio. When somebody goes to buy a CD, they don't THINK they're buying a license, they THINK they're buying convenience.
I did not make that clear at all, and I apologize.
" there are high end all-digital systems, where signals are not converted to analog until they hit the speaker"
All I have to do is run a pair of wires from each speaker into a mini plug. I'm no electrician, but that'd be a piece of cake.
They'd have to invent a digital speaker before you can do that, and that just cannot happen unless they invent telepathic headphones.
You can use a Dreamcast to read GameCube disks?? O_o
"What do you think DVD Audio [dvdaudiopreview.com] and Super Audio CD [sonymusic.com] are?"
They're not marketing them very heavily. They need to do that before they can actually switch over. I have a feeling they're not doing that at all, they're just providing a premium service for the hardcore audiophiles out there.
Plus, I want the media to be smaller, not the same size. CD Players are rather large for my pocket.
Could somebody translate this into english for me?
My idea was to have the autorun program just eject the CD. You pop the CD in, and then it pops back out again. It'd be kind of like the PC gagging on it, hehe. I'm sure it'd take a while for the average user to know that disabling autorun'd turn off that behviour.
Both my DVD Rom and CD Burner have 'COMPACT DISC' on the drive. I wonder if a class action lawsuit would be possible under that circumstance. There ARE CD ROMS that play without needing the PC's intervention. If they crash those too, then technically they would be violating the CD standard.
The problem with joining a class action suit is that it'd make us look like we all listen to Celine Dione. *Shudder* I'd rather walk around wearing a shirt that reads "I am a virgin."
There's something different enough about the Nintendo DVD's that simply putting one into a DVD player won't make it instantly readable, but they could easily make a version of the GC that could play DVD's.
I wish I could explain it better to you, but it's been so long since I've read about it that I honestly couldn't tell you what all they did to protect them. Let's just say that anybody who manages to get data off the disk would have to have deep pockets to get the equipment they need.
Every time I post something that gets a bunch of +1's, there's some jackass that comes along and marks it overrrated. Normally I wouldn't pay attention to it, except it has happened on every single popular post I've made in the last 2 weeks. Is there some git running around marking everybody down?
Since when is suggesting a new idea overrrated? At least show yourself and tell me why!
Note: Just to be clear, I'm not worried about Karma, it just feels like somebody's following me around and marking me down just for shits and giggles. It'd be nice to know that maybe they at least have a point to it.
Funny, I didn't think the idea of making the CD corrupt would cost that much money to develop. Heh. :)
... is that it's waaaaaaay too easy to replicate. I think the RIAA chose a very bad product to produce if they are concerned about non-paid-for copies floating around.
All I have to do is download the lyrics and I could sing the song. Garage bands could easily do a nice rendition of the song that'd be worth listening to. As a matter of fact, re-mixes are quite popular out there. A lot of remixes don't even have elements of the original score in them. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They may be able to stop me from ripping a CD, but there's no way on Earth they could stop somebody from recording their own rendition of a song.
It seems to me that the RIAA is being rather unrealistic in their choice of products to make. I just don't see how they could expect to end all 'piracy' for good. The worst part is that they are blaming the wrong people.
For example, Eisner said that Apple was promoting piracy with their "Rip/Mix/Burn" campaign. His concern is that people will think that music is free and that they don't have to pay for it. But wait a minute, people were trading MP3's LONG before Apple was airing any commercials. If anybody thinks that music is free, its because it's played on the radio!
When the music is played on the radio, they're basically saying 'music is free, just enjoy it.'. That's part of what made it fun to go buy songs. What you were buying, then, was not the right to listen to it, but the convenience of listening to it whenever and wherever you want. CD's, at the time, were the best way to do it.
Then MP3's came along. Oopsie, the RIAA didn't stay on the ball, and now their business model that THEY CREATED is turning against them. The amusing thing is that they are playing the wrong hand to fight it. I can't believe they are actually surprised that people may think music is free. This is not a new occurance, this is what the RIAA taught them!
If they want to fight it, they need to come up with a MORE CONVENIENT solution, instead of trying to make it illegal. Underage smoking: Illegal, happens anyway. Underage drinking: Illegal, happens anwyay. Smoking pot: Illegal, happens anyway. Why on earth do they think they can stop it? What they're FAR better off doing is saying "You can buy MP3s (or a variant) from us! They're cheap, and you can download any song you want really really fast. Buy an album and get a discount."
Better yet, they'd find ways to make money through the channels people are using to get songs. What if they released an MP3 version of a song with one of the singers at the end saying 'Mention this code: JdWt when you buy the song and get $2 off the album purchase.'?
They have so many options they could use, but they chose the one where they piss EVERYBODY off. Nice.
The reason that cassettes are still available is that people like to listen to music in their cars. From a technology stand point, cassette is a better choice for a moving vehicle. Take that away, and the value of cassettes would be virtually nil. CD Players are dirt cheap and far better quality. It's certainly not because there are people who don't have CD Players out there.
In any case, part of what I was saying was that the 'new media' would be a higher quality than CD. The quality difference between CD and cassette is rather hard on the ears.
So, if Sony has enabled this 'protection' technology on the CD's, then they are (in theory) stopping 'pirates' from making unauthorized copies. Therefore, they are not losing as much money.
Shouldn't they at least reward us for our inconvenience? I mean if Sony said "Tell you what, because we've implemented this new 'protection' scheme, we'll knock $5 off the price of the CD."
If they're not doing that, how can the use the word protection? It's certainly not us they're protecting. They should use the word restriction at that point.
Tell you what, if Sony (or any other Music Label) were to take this approach, I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for them. I'm not sure it'd end my boycott, but it'd be a start. They took my music rights away, therefore the music has much less value. So why should the prices be the same? That gives them the image of being super evil.
"They did (maybe not directly), it's called DVD. It has a audio only format."
It may take a little hacking at, but I'm pretty sure somebody'll figure out a way (if they haven't already done so) to rip the audio off it.
"But even if they changed to a closed format and media, the problem would be that the instaled base of cd players, either in cars, stereos, etc, is way to big to let RIAA change from cds to that new media in a period less than a few millenia... Will still having to release a cd version..."
They have the same problem if they try to restrict the CD's. Then they have to deal with a much worse problem: Not everybody who has a CD player can play their music. If that's the case, who'd trust a flakey media? It'd be far better for the RIAA to say "here is a brand new media, it's higher quality and it's smaller." and get it proliferated out there.
They'd have to transition from CD's to this new media, but once it's done they've bought themselves some time. The music industry has changed media a few times now. Records... 8-track... cassettes... CD... They could do it again. They're about due for it anyway. People's needs have changed. People today are spending money in order to listen to other media, such as MP3's. If that market gets saturated, the RIAA is screwed. Their tactic of 'lets change law to force people to use our ancient business model' has little chance of success, and could very well mean that a new organization rises to take their place.
"how is preventing me to listen to a CD an incentive to buy it????"
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? It'd be like Coca Cola making their drinks evaporate moments after they leave the can, that way nobody could pour the coke into a cup and sell it to somebody else.
I think the RIAA should just use new media for music and stop using CD's. It'd be really simple for them to use a media format not unlike Nintendo's GameCube media. Heck, with modern compression schemes, they could use a higher frequency range and put all kinds of other doodads in it to make it better than the modern CD.
The media wouldn't have a drive for PC's, and if they patent the technology then nobody could release a PC drive. The only recourse would be for for people to run a cable from the device to the PC to capture the music. No matter what kind of 'protection schemes' they create, they'll never get around the fact that the sound becomes analog at some point. At least this way, they make it less convenient to copy the music.
This would go a lot farther than trying to preemptively punish me for being a criminal.
If Sony wanted to be obnoxious, they could write a program that starts when Autorun is activated. It could cover the screen and say "YOU CANT PLAY THIS HERE!!!", and then send a signal to the CD ROM to eject the CD. When somebody puts it back in... and so on.
Yes, this would be easy to get around. But I'd far prefer that then causing a BSOD.
'I wonder if my brain qualifies as a "digital device"?'
No, but your hand does. =)
"One interesting point (and something I hope someone who understood the issue a bit more than I did at the time would comment on)... is Netscape claimed the W3C was going too slow. Instead of waiting for the new official standard, they simply implemented functionality that was being discussed for the new standard. The question is, did this forced the W3C to speed up their publication of new standards?"
I see what you're saying. You know what really pissed me off (and turned me into an Opera user)? It's when MS removed all support for 'Netscape Style Plugins' from IE6. Thus, anybody who makes a plugin that works on both Netscape and IE now has to make an ActiveX control.
This is a pretty clear example of MS screwing up the standards. I wish I had remembered this when I made my original post. I'd withdraw it now if I could.
The worst part is nobody really knows why MS pulled the support. A lot of people jumped to th conclusion that MS was just trying to put Netscape out of their misery. I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine said he read somewhere that there is a patent on running executables from a web page and that whoever owns it sued MS and won, but didn't sue Netscape or anybody else. Thus MS had to pull their support. Im not really sure if I believe this, but it is interesting that MS yanked support so suddenly. Beta versions of IE6 worked just fine with plug-ins. I don't think MS had planned that all along, I think the decision was made rather suddenly.
Whether or not they did it because they're evil or because they lost a lawsuit isn't relevant at this point. The fact that MS didn't provide a single reason as to why they made such a change is what bothers the hell out of me. The most I could get was 'for security reasons...'.
I see your point guys, wish I saw it before I started posting.
Heh no point. We're running Apache now.
Seems like a silly statement, doesn't it? I think the key to getting indepdenent artists out there (non-tainted by the RIAA) is dependent on themselves getting heard. If Internet Radio cannot play RIAA created songs, then the only music they can play will be made by the indies out there.
You know what this means?
a.) The RIAA can have all the copy protection they want. Assuming the indie artists don't follow suit (and I doubt they will), then it won't affect us.
b.) No more being bombarded by the RIAA's flavor of the week. BYE BYE BOY BANDS!!
c.) It is a LOT easier to get your indie song played to an audience. I don't think I could create a song that'd make it on anybody but a hobbyist station. But if they have to go with indies anyway, then it seems like anybody could sign up.
Suddenly, programs like Kazaa become a powerful marketing tool.
I've used IIS before and never had any traffic related problems. As a matter of fact, we only needed to reboot once. I don't think we got enough traffic to find out what it's limits were. We never thought we needed to upgrade, though.
The reason I'm not defending IIS is that we got that stupid Nimda virus. I was *mad* when I did rooting around the computer and figured out what happened. Turns out that Nimda took advantage of a few things that happened to be on that server, including Outlook Express, Media Player, and one other non-Webserver related program that I can't remember right now.
That was when I realized a couple of things:
1.) A webserver should only be a webserver, it should not be equipped to do things such as email. Damn Microsoft for that. It is for that reason alone that I'd be more than happy to climb the Linux learning curve to set up a websever.
2.) The best security is not obscurity or encryption, but uniqueness. The reason that the kiddie scripter was able to do damage to my machine was because he knew what would be on it and where. Well we won't have any luck this time around. CMD.exe has been renamed, Outlook has been configured to just not work anymore.
Could somebody get in afterwords? Well, nobody managed to that I know of. We're running Apache now so that's a moot point. IIS was a breeze to set up and get running. Heck, even tweaking it was super easy. Too bad I paid for that by being vulnerable to a general purpose attack.
If you scan back through my previous posts, you'll hear inklings along the lines of 'MS is no for servers', now you know why.
Part of me can't help but think that the real reason this industry is trying to encrypt the digital signal is so that VCR companies will have to pay them royalties. I don't think they care as much about what happens to their signal after it hits household TV's.
I'd be okay with royalty extortion, except they're trying to control what I do with the content. Well, I have a piece of advice for them. The minute that a TV show becomes too hard to watch because I refuse to be anchored to my TV day and night is the minute that I stop watching TV. I have plenty of things I could be off doing, TV is more of a luxury than anything else.
How do they seriously expect people to adopt Digital TV over Analog TV when they don't get the same priveledges they are used to? Hell, the reason I don't have Digital Cable right now is that my home-brew PVR can't work with it!
All fair points, thank you.
Question: How could Netscape use a tag and prevent IE from using it? Copyright? Or was it 'we don't need their stinkin features' macho influence?
"At least know what the hell you are speaking of."
Have I used Windows Me? Nope. I stuck with Win2k. Lots of my friends, however, had lots of driver trouble with Windows Me. Seems unlikely WinMe would be such a bitch when 98 had been out so long.
Even if you're 100% right (and you may very well be) my point stands. The discussion was about interface, not how drivers work. Maybe YOU should know what the hell you're talking about before you correct somebody's detail so harshly.