Consider someone walking down the street, minding their own business, smoking a joint. Until the police can be trusted to leave peaceful people in peace, their activities need to be curtailed as much as possible.
I doubt you could stream iTunes encrypted content normally, so it wouldn't even apply. There's no reason you couldn't stream the unencrypted content that everyone actually uses, though.
The Chinese are not children, they know very well that they're being censored, whether Google tells them or not. This just makes them far less likely to try to get around the censorship, making it easier for the government to crack down on people who do.
It will still be embedded, even if you never buy one of these disks. How long do you really think it'll take for a worm to start activating this stuff?
Of all those people, how many of them haven't purchased any of their content? Remember, in the free world, it's perfectly legal to make personal copies.
I'd suggest you lurk, rather than post, because you just reinforce the "Americans are stupid" meme. It's fine to listen to the grown ups talk, but don't pipe in.
There are other products with the same sort of interface.
I need the ability to just drop files onto my mp3 player, because I bring it with me to share music files with friends, and I don't want to have to deal with installing stuff on their machines. I want something that "just works".
There are plenty of us who object to any DRM, especially on music. Canadians have a right to private copying, so we quite legitimately object to US laws being forced on us.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. No matter how well coded, any information used by a program is available to someone determined to extract it.
You'll just have to accept that you may have to think a bit to follow things, with your disadvantages.
Inflation does equal loss of purchasing power, by definition. The fact that it may be reported incorrectly does not change that. It's reported correctly, for the most part, though. The people who calculate it are much, much more intelligent and educated than you are. You have no justification to challenge them, but if you must, publish. When you do, you'll get ignored, or at best laughed at.
Oh, and by the way, only simpletons pay more than nominal bank fees. They're trivial to avoid. Think about the fact that you haven't, and then take whatever money you have, and turn it over to someone capable of managing it wisely. Have a smarter relative, if you have one, find someone who won't swindle you. Or don't, the economy works better when fools are separated from their money.
It's not hard to find an account that gives higher than inflation interest rates, especially if you're willing to commit to long interval periods. They aren't the best idea for most purposes, but they are useful for some things, such as guaranteed income flow.
Before you shoot your mouth off, make sure you know what you're talking about.
If the readme gets altered and checked back in, it has the watermark checked in with it. If you think it would be trivial to separate the watermark from the diff, you're displaying further ignorance.
Watermarks on read only files are fine, to a point. They fall apart when the various targets have physical access to each other's machines, allowing them to get files watermarked to someone else. If the system isn't perfect, it's worthless. All a defendant has to do is demonstrate a method for their watermark to be on the files innocently.
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably operating out of somewhere that doesn't give two shits about the SEC or American financial laws.
Anyone who buys stock because spam tells them to deserves what they get.
You have the right to be rendered to Syria for "questioning".
Consider someone walking down the street, minding their own business, smoking a joint. Until the police can be trusted to leave peaceful people in peace, their activities need to be curtailed as much as possible.
I doubt you could stream iTunes encrypted content normally, so it wouldn't even apply. There's no reason you couldn't stream the unencrypted content that everyone actually uses, though.
The Chinese are not children, they know very well that they're being censored, whether Google tells them or not. This just makes them far less likely to try to get around the censorship, making it easier for the government to crack down on people who do.
It will still be embedded, even if you never buy one of these disks. How long do you really think it'll take for a worm to start activating this stuff?
Allofmp3 isn't substantially less expensive than eMusic. If eMusic can pay their bills, certainly the RIAA could emulate their model.
Don't include any DRM or music service at all, and let your customers decide how to fill the device. Like every other mp3 player on the market.
Almost all mp3 players on the market easily allow you to transfer music files onto and off of them. The only exceptions are the Zune and iPods.
Of all those people, how many of them haven't purchased any of their content? Remember, in the free world, it's perfectly legal to make personal copies.
I'd suggest you lurk, rather than post, because you just reinforce the "Americans are stupid" meme. It's fine to listen to the grown ups talk, but don't pipe in.
The internet is not inside the US.
There are quite a few programs to encourage men to become nurses.
There are other products with the same sort of interface.
I need the ability to just drop files onto my mp3 player, because I bring it with me to share music files with friends, and I don't want to have to deal with installing stuff on their machines. I want something that "just works".
I'll just buy a standard UMS or MTP device that won't try to tell me what to do.
So I certainly do have cause to complain.
Plug your iPod into a friends computer, and swap music files without installing any additional software (like iTunes)?
There are plenty of us who object to any DRM, especially on music. Canadians have a right to private copying, so we quite legitimately object to US laws being forced on us.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. No matter how well coded, any information used by a program is available to someone determined to extract it.
Feel free to make stuff up on the internet, if it makes you feel better about your inadequacies, though.
You'll just have to accept that you may have to think a bit to follow things, with your disadvantages.
Inflation does equal loss of purchasing power, by definition. The fact that it may be reported incorrectly does not change that. It's reported correctly, for the most part, though. The people who calculate it are much, much more intelligent and educated than you are. You have no justification to challenge them, but if you must, publish. When you do, you'll get ignored, or at best laughed at.
Oh, and by the way, only simpletons pay more than nominal bank fees. They're trivial to avoid. Think about the fact that you haven't, and then take whatever money you have, and turn it over to someone capable of managing it wisely. Have a smarter relative, if you have one, find someone who won't swindle you. Or don't, the economy works better when fools are separated from their money.
Thanks for the entertainment, peon.
It's not hard to find an account that gives higher than inflation interest rates, especially if you're willing to commit to long interval periods. They aren't the best idea for most purposes, but they are useful for some things, such as guaranteed income flow.
Before you shoot your mouth off, make sure you know what you're talking about.
If the readme gets altered and checked back in, it has the watermark checked in with it. If you think it would be trivial to separate the watermark from the diff, you're displaying further ignorance.
Watermarks on read only files are fine, to a point. They fall apart when the various targets have physical access to each other's machines, allowing them to get files watermarked to someone else. If the system isn't perfect, it's worthless. All a defendant has to do is demonstrate a method for their watermark to be on the files innocently.
When that readme file gets altered and checked back in? What do you gain from this anyway? How do you prove the administrator didn't do the leak?