For not caring, you sure are posting about it a lot. But for the record, you pulled out your "prize" first, and were one-upped, and now dismiss it like any other loser. To put it in your language, "suck it down."
I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.
Exactly. So long as one CPU cycle per second is wasted on digital restrictions enforcement, there is no way for Microsoft to be convincing in saying the problems with performance can't at least partially be lain at DRM's feet.
Wow, your one line retort has overwhelmed me with your sarcastic genius! Time for me to stop posting on Slashdot and join a roving band of nomads in the desert... No, wait, that was a lie. Sorry about that.
Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.
That procedure requires the computer still be running. Suffer a crash that requires an OS reinstall or replacement and you're down one machine, forever. Better to preemptively strip the DRM from what you buy and not have to worry about it. It's a symptom of our corporate whore government that doing so is technically a criminal act in the United States.
Any increased funding to technological law enforcement would be used to prosecute the new criminal copyright infringement statutes and provide more teeth to the DMCA, not to fight spam. The victims of spam don't donate as much as the corporations (who have spun themselves as "victims" of "theft") do.
I agree that's the best choice, particuarly if they can be purchased used. Finding out which ones are DRM-infected and which ones aren't is hit or miss these days, though. Shame to have to Google the artist and title first instead of being able to just pick up a CD in the shop.
Sorry you think it's a "fascist-sounding word," but I can't think of a more appropriate word for the one-sided, unilaterally alterable, waiver-laden license "agreements" than Diktat. When someone claims to be "selling" a song, and attaches digital restrictions to it, the buyer is free to break those restrictions. The non-enforcability of a waiver fair use rights is a moral non-enforcability, as well as a practical one.
I didn't "equate" slavery and indentured servitude, or indentured servitude and the ITMS Diktat "agreement"--you did. They are the same in principle, but obviously not in degree. I enjoyed the hyperbole of comparison of the ITMS Diktat to real contracts, particularly the marriage and military enlistments. Note that those agreements require signatures, witnessess, and multiple affirmations--there is a bit more to those than clicking an "I agree" button.
As for the implication that repudiating an unenforceable waiver of fair use leading to the downfall of society itself, well, that's nice rhetoric but a little over the top.
If you believe that IE7 isn't storing obfuscated and difficult to remove tracks for forensic use (q.v. INDEX.DAT) at the request of large corporate customers and law enforcement, you're much more trusting of them than I am.
Slashdot Mirror
For not caring, you sure are posting about it a lot. But for the record, you pulled out your "prize" first, and were one-upped, and now dismiss it like any other loser. To put it in your language, "suck it down."
Now that you got shut down, you don't care. Typical.
I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.
Hard to tell, but I'm usually above bragging about posting at 2.
Says the 900k+ troll ID.
Exactly. So long as one CPU cycle per second is wasted on digital restrictions enforcement, there is no way for Microsoft to be convincing in saying the problems with performance can't at least partially be lain at DRM's feet.
Wow, your one line retort has overwhelmed me with your sarcastic genius! Time for me to stop posting on Slashdot and join a roving band of nomads in the desert ... No, wait, that was a lie. Sorry about that.
There were a number of people hanged at Nuremburg for "following legal orders." Do we owe their descendants an apology?
Suuuuuure it isn't.
Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.
. . . to be announced shortly.
That procedure requires the computer still be running. Suffer a crash that requires an OS reinstall or replacement and you're down one machine, forever. Better to preemptively strip the DRM from what you buy and not have to worry about it. It's a symptom of our corporate whore government that doing so is technically a criminal act in the United States.
Any increased funding to technological law enforcement would be used to prosecute the new criminal copyright infringement statutes and provide more teeth to the DMCA, not to fight spam. The victims of spam don't donate as much as the corporations (who have spun themselves as "victims" of "theft") do.
. . . considering that there wouldn't even be online music sales without some kind of promise of secure DRM.
That's right folks! The record companies will leave the money from online sales on the table unless there's bulletproof DRM. NOT.
. . . have been broken by Windows Updates rather than other malicious code
:)?
How do you distinguish between the two
I agree that's the best choice, particuarly if they can be purchased used. Finding out which ones are DRM-infected and which ones aren't is hit or miss these days, though. Shame to have to Google the artist and title first instead of being able to just pick up a CD in the shop.
Being able to choose which vendor demands you waive fair use isn't a choice.
Did you even read the linked essay?
Exactly--mod parent up!
Sorry you think it's a "fascist-sounding word," but I can't think of a more appropriate word for the one-sided, unilaterally alterable, waiver-laden license "agreements" than Diktat. When someone claims to be "selling" a song, and attaches digital restrictions to it, the buyer is free to break those restrictions. The non-enforcability of a waiver fair use rights is a moral non-enforcability, as well as a practical one.
I haven't written the executive offices, but I did open a ticket to ask about it.
They jacked up the "Regulatory Compliance Fee" (i.e. we want you to think this is a tax, but is just gravy for us fee) from $2.24 to $4.16.
I didn't "equate" slavery and indentured servitude, or indentured servitude and the ITMS Diktat "agreement"--you did. They are the same in principle, but obviously not in degree. I enjoyed the hyperbole of comparison of the ITMS Diktat to real contracts, particularly the marriage and military enlistments. Note that those agreements require signatures, witnessess, and multiple affirmations--there is a bit more to those than clicking an "I agree" button.
As for the implication that repudiating an unenforceable waiver of fair use leading to the downfall of society itself, well, that's nice rhetoric but a little over the top.
So you're in support of the enforceability of indentured servitude? No wonder you're in favor of DRM.
If you believe that IE7 isn't storing obfuscated and difficult to remove tracks for forensic use (q.v. INDEX.DAT) at the request of large corporate customers and law enforcement, you're much more trusting of them than I am.