Now, I dislike microsoft quite a bit, but having been a gamer most of my life, this kind of thing goes on all the time in the industry.
The only problem with the strategy here is that Sony has deep enough pockets to go head to head with Microsoft doing the same thing.
In the end, though, MS has already lost the Japanese market, and Sony has such a larger user base worldwide that despite the difficulty programming the PS2 - developers will support the platform that has 25 million users better than the the one that has 2 or 3 million (especially when the XBox is still underselling PS2 by a factor, they can't catch up if they can't outsell) - I'm used to this idea, I'm a mac user.
Just like so many people only buy unencrypted DVDs? The DVD standard does not require CSS encryption... and yet... how many unencrypted DVDs do you know about? Any movies you would want to buy?
The difference being that people did not get to buy unencrypted DVDs for 20 years before having the encryption foisted upon them - and the only prevalent alternative (VHS) is much lower quality. Whereas with CD's - the new copy protected CD's will have no dicernable advantage over a standard CD aside from content. In fact they will be inferior, as they will not be playable on many devices - this is their achilies heel.
I do believe there are enough people who would vote with their pocketbooks when faced with losing features and compatibility that have come to be expected. But no one ever expected that of DVD - it was sold from the beginning as an encrypted format.
And in the end, if copy-protected CDs become prevalent - it will just mean the mp3's I put on my iPod will have to be the result of a Digital -> Analog -> Digital process with the resulting loss of quality. End result - I can still take my music with me - and that's all I want. But I will be much more picky about encrypted CD's - they will be harder to use than my existing 500 CD's, and will not sound as good. And that will cost the RIAA in the end.
"We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original." - unanimous 3 judge court of appeals decision
Fair use does not give use rights - it protects against overzealous copyright holders suing you.
As long as the CDs are required to be identified by labels, the RIAA will be cutting their own throat, as they will experience more lost sales from a warning label than they will from warez kiddies. Beside - said warez kiddies will just end up using analog outputs to capture audio, that will be turned back into digital audio (with slightly reduced quality), then ripping said files into mp3 or whatever format prevails.
But, I know that when I stop buying CDs because of copy protection - it will hurt them so much, they will cry uncle - not because of me in particular, but because many people will be doing the same as me, a great many people. We will hit them in their pocketbooks - and reward the companies who do not copy protect their CD's.
So all I want is legislation that requires the label to cover at least 25% of the front, so as it cannot be overlooked.
A lot of people are using these with our ethernet MP3 player
Sounds like some people are doing exactly what I want to do - hooking a single device up to a wireless network with a bridge. Maybe as more people do this, a more elegant (and spacesaving) solution might become available. At least I am now, on the right track....
That's called an 802.11 bridge, and they've been available since the beginning. They're just a bit expensive, and if you think about it, if you've got a wire and all anyway, why not just run it to the hub?
Well, if my home is not wired, and it would mean running a wire from one room to the other where my Airport Base Station is located, I would prefer not to run a wire. I'm not trying to hook up a physical network to a wireless network. I am trying to hook-up a single device to a wireless network.
So, the correct answer is I need a bridge to connect the 1 ethernet device to my already existing 802.11b wireless network. Right now they are all expensive and targeted at hooking up a whole network of wired computers to a wireless network. I will probably have to wait until they a)come down in price and b)they are some models more targeted at getting single old, legacy, wired devices on more prevalent wireless networks.
Um, couldn't you just use a base station (airport or the like) to do that?
Okay - I have a base station, but it is hooked up to my internet connection - in another room. I guess I just never thought about using an entire base station to give a single device access to my internet access base station.
So I could buy another bridge and make it use the Airport network as the internet connection instead of using the WAN port? I stand corrected, but it seems a bit much to buy a full featured bridge for every device that needs an internet connection.....
If I remember correctly, 802.11a goes 54mbps full duplex, as opposed to the current 11mbps on 802.11b.
I don't know about you guys, but the idea that something faster exists and should be accessible is what's keeping me from buying anything wireless right now.
Well, 802.11a fills me with horror, as it is not backward compatible with 802.11b - now 802.11g (IIRC - maybe f) will be great - and will be backwards compatible. That's why it's not off the ground yet - g is not yet available, and while I think a is could be available, it has many problems (scaling back speed, reception distance, and backward compatibility) which will hopefully keep it grounded.
When will someone get on the ball and just develop an Ethernet->802.11b adapter that can be pugged in to any device that has standard 10/100 Ethernet jack so it could be put on a Wireless network?
Is this just an impossibility? Am I the only one who thinks this would be a hot seller? I want to buy a new ReplayTV 4000, but I have no desire to run Cat5 to it. I want to eliminate extra wiring hassle from my home theater.
Seems like a good hint you're applying with the wrong company;-). If they only accept M$-crap, not even plain-text or HTML, then the UNIX-folks probably don't have any influence in the company.
Yeah, and the selection of HR software available for use on a UNIX machine is overwhelming. Not to mention the well know fact that UNIX-folks are much superior to HR-folks and would force them to use vi or emacs, along with lots of little stickies to do their jobs.
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
How is anyone prevented from using non-Microsoft software?
Apple and Linux have not constituted an option to Microsoft for years. Microsoft owns the market and wielded it's power as a club for over 10 years.
When Microsoft already owned over 80% of the market, and wanted to get rid of any other viable options, they told OEM's they would have to pay for a windows license for every computer they sold - effectively making every other OS cost twice as much - if they wanted to keep their windows license (and who would say no when it would mean losing more than 80% of their business vs losing less than 20%.
And then when the threat of Netscape loomed over them, they did not strive to win marketshare through innovation - No, they went again to the OEMs and made it costly to do business with Netscape - Forcing OEMs who wished to provide alternatives to pay excessively higer licensing fee than those who would agree to 'knife the baby' and support the market leader (of OS's - not browsers).
But, no - you're right. Microsoft has always looked at consumer choice above all other goals as the holy grail to strive towards. They must not be a monopoly because 5.1% of the market chooses to think different (despite being constantly told we're idiots for not conforming, for not becoming lemmings following Microsoft blindly)
I believe in free market economics, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. I don't trust Microsoft to stop such behaviors willingly. I would be a fool if I did trust them, so I am a fool either way. Oh, well....
Germany has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world.
This kind of logic is ridiculous. Germany's rate of violent crime is directly a result of them selling RTCW in adult only stores...... This is about as ridiculous as people citing gun control laws as responsible in the UK.
We couldn't possibly have worse crime in the US because we put too much stock in rehabilitation...., or because people don't take the time and care to learn to use weapons for self-defense....., or etc....?
No, wait - you've convinced me. If we take RTCW off the shelves we will be so much better off as a society..... But why stop there, let's just ban the XBox, too (not such a bad idea, now that i think about it). And Personal Computers (so you can't play RTCW or MS Flight Sim). And box cutters - you know they're dangerous after 9/11 proved it. And....
The media port on the back of the Xbox is labelled Video Input/Output. If it had a method of storing PVR info on a network share, it might have everything it needs now.
I don't think the XBox has the power to do real-time MPEG-2 compression without some custom silicon (Both the ReplayTV and Tivo units use custom chips to handle the encoding, IIRC) - it would also need to contain a tuner, or an ir blaster to control a cable or satellite box. It would be a poor man's ReplayTV, if it could be done - but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped PC's from dominating over Macs, so why wouldn't it work?
Slashdot Mirror
So that's why those CD's weren't ejecting!
I think the important point is that these are not CD's....
Now, I dislike microsoft quite a bit, but having been a gamer most of my life, this kind of thing goes on all the time in the industry. The only problem with the strategy here is that Sony has deep enough pockets to go head to head with Microsoft doing the same thing. In the end, though, MS has already lost the Japanese market, and Sony has such a larger user base worldwide that despite the difficulty programming the PS2 - developers will support the platform that has 25 million users better than the the one that has 2 or 3 million (especially when the XBox is still underselling PS2 by a factor, they can't catch up if they can't outsell) - I'm used to this idea, I'm a mac user.
If so, then why aren't they porting it over to x86 ? I want my hands on this!
Not much chance of this - Ambrosia has long been a mac only shop, and unlike Bungie they haven't been pulled to the dark side.
Time for you to plunk down for an iBook or TiBook, hehe.
Just like so many people only buy unencrypted DVDs? The DVD standard does not require CSS encryption ... and yet ... how many unencrypted DVDs do you know about? Any movies you would want to buy?
The difference being that people did not get to buy unencrypted DVDs for 20 years before having the encryption foisted upon them - and the only prevalent alternative (VHS) is much lower quality. Whereas with CD's - the new copy protected CD's will have no dicernable advantage over a standard CD aside from content. In fact they will be inferior, as they will not be playable on many devices - this is their achilies heel.
I do believe there are enough people who would vote with their pocketbooks when faced with losing features and compatibility that have come to be expected. But no one ever expected that of DVD - it was sold from the beginning as an encrypted format.
And in the end, if copy-protected CDs become prevalent - it will just mean the mp3's I put on my iPod will have to be the result of a Digital -> Analog -> Digital process with the resulting loss of quality. End result - I can still take my music with me - and that's all I want. But I will be much more picky about encrypted CD's - they will be harder to use than my existing 500 CD's, and will not sound as good. And that will cost the RIAA in the end.
from the article (for those that haven't read it)
"We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original." - unanimous 3 judge court of appeals decision
Fair use does not give use rights - it protects against overzealous copyright holders suing you.
As long as the CDs are required to be identified by labels, the RIAA will be cutting their own throat, as they will experience more lost sales from a warning label than they will from warez kiddies. Beside - said warez kiddies will just end up using analog outputs to capture audio, that will be turned back into digital audio (with slightly reduced quality), then ripping said files into mp3 or whatever format prevails.
But, I know that when I stop buying CDs because of copy protection - it will hurt them so much, they will cry uncle - not because of me in particular, but because many people will be doing the same as me, a great many people. We will hit them in their pocketbooks - and reward the companies who do not copy protect their CD's.
So all I want is legislation that requires the label to cover at least 25% of the front, so as it cannot be overlooked.
'nuff said
A lot of people are using these with our ethernet MP3 player
Sounds like some people are doing exactly what I want to do - hooking a single device up to a wireless network with a bridge. Maybe as more people do this, a more elegant (and spacesaving) solution might become available. At least I am now, on the right track....
thanks
That's called an 802.11 bridge, and they've been available since the beginning. They're just a bit expensive, and if you think about it, if you've got a wire and all anyway, why not just run it to the hub?
Well, if my home is not wired, and it would mean running a wire from one room to the other where my Airport Base Station is located, I would prefer not to run a wire. I'm not trying to hook up a physical network to a wireless network. I am trying to hook-up a single device to a wireless network.
So, the correct answer is I need a bridge to connect the 1 ethernet device to my already existing 802.11b wireless network. Right now they are all expensive and targeted at hooking up a whole network of wired computers to a wireless network. I will probably have to wait until they a)come down in price and b)they are some models more targeted at getting single old, legacy, wired devices on more prevalent wireless networks.
Um, couldn't you just use a base station (airport or the like) to do that?
Okay - I have a base station, but it is hooked up to my internet connection - in another room. I guess I just never thought about using an entire base station to give a single device access to my internet access base station.
So I could buy another bridge and make it use the Airport network as the internet connection instead of using the WAN port? I stand corrected, but it seems a bit much to buy a full featured bridge for every device that needs an internet connection.....
If I remember correctly, 802.11a goes 54mbps full duplex, as opposed to the current 11mbps on 802.11b. I don't know about you guys, but the idea that something faster exists and should be accessible is what's keeping me from buying anything wireless right now.
Well, 802.11a fills me with horror, as it is not backward compatible with 802.11b - now 802.11g (IIRC - maybe f) will be great - and will be backwards compatible. That's why it's not off the ground yet - g is not yet available, and while I think a is could be available, it has many problems (scaling back speed, reception distance, and backward compatibility) which will hopefully keep it grounded.
When will someone get on the ball and just develop an Ethernet->802.11b adapter that can be pugged in to any device that has standard 10/100 Ethernet jack so it could be put on a Wireless network?
Is this just an impossibility? Am I the only one who thinks this would be a hot seller? I want to buy a new ReplayTV 4000, but I have no desire to run Cat5 to it. I want to eliminate extra wiring hassle from my home theater.
Ah, well - probably just a pipe dream.
Seems like a good hint you're applying with the wrong company ;-). If they only accept M$-crap, not even plain-text or HTML, then the UNIX-folks probably don't have any influence in the company.
Yeah, and the selection of HR software available for use on a UNIX machine is overwhelming. Not to mention the well know fact that UNIX-folks are much superior to HR-folks and would force them to use vi or emacs, along with lots of little stickies to do their jobs.
But how can someone be a monopoly where there are multiple other options? Apple, Linux, etc?
How is anyone prevented from using non-Microsoft software?
Apple and Linux have not constituted an option to Microsoft for years. Microsoft owns the market and wielded it's power as a club for over 10 years.
When Microsoft already owned over 80% of the market, and wanted to get rid of any other viable options, they told OEM's they would have to pay for a windows license for every computer they sold - effectively making every other OS cost twice as much - if they wanted to keep their windows license (and who would say no when it would mean losing more than 80% of their business vs losing less than 20%.
And then when the threat of Netscape loomed over them, they did not strive to win marketshare through innovation - No, they went again to the OEMs and made it costly to do business with Netscape - Forcing OEMs who wished to provide alternatives to pay excessively higer licensing fee than those who would agree to 'knife the baby' and support the market leader (of OS's - not browsers).
But, no - you're right. Microsoft has always looked at consumer choice above all other goals as the holy grail to strive towards. They must not be a monopoly because 5.1% of the market chooses to think different (despite being constantly told we're idiots for not conforming, for not becoming lemmings following Microsoft blindly)
I believe in free market economics, but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. I don't trust Microsoft to stop such behaviors willingly. I would be a fool if I did trust them, so I am a fool either way. Oh, well....
Germany has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world.
This kind of logic is ridiculous. Germany's rate of violent crime is directly a result of them selling RTCW in adult only stores...... This is about as ridiculous as people citing gun control laws as responsible in the UK.
We couldn't possibly have worse crime in the US because we put too much stock in rehabilitation...., or because people don't take the time and care to learn to use weapons for self-defense....., or etc....?
No, wait - you've convinced me. If we take RTCW off the shelves we will be so much better off as a society..... But why stop there, let's just ban the XBox, too (not such a bad idea, now that i think about it). And Personal Computers (so you can't play RTCW or MS Flight Sim). And box cutters - you know they're dangerous after 9/11 proved it. And....
The media port on the back of the Xbox is labelled Video Input/Output. If it had a method of storing PVR info on a network share, it might have everything it needs now.
I don't think the XBox has the power to do real-time MPEG-2 compression without some custom silicon (Both the ReplayTV and Tivo units use custom chips to handle the encoding, IIRC) - it would also need to contain a tuner, or an ir blaster to control a cable or satellite box. It would be a poor man's ReplayTV, if it could be done - but that kind of thinking hasn't stopped PC's from dominating over Macs, so why wouldn't it work?
God help us all!