As I said, MS keeps getting sued and punished because they continue to ignore the laws of the majority of the countries they are doing business in.
Indeed. The question is not "should MS be punished?", the question is "is this the right punishment?" Forcing a company to redesign its product -- one that has been hugely successful -- is not the right approach. It is a double-standard. When Apple is forced by some government to license FairPlay to rivals in the digital music business, then I'll believe standards are being applied fairly.
You could run a business that sells computers, and you can install, say, Ubuntu on those machines
and
As MS has a monopoly on the market, and they are outright preventing competing software
Um, you don't see a contradiction there? If MS has a monopoly and can "prevent competing software," then how can I run a business that sells computers and installs Ubuntu? Either one or the other can be true, but not both. Sure, Windows is effectively a monopoly, just like the iPod is effectively a monopoly, even though people are free to buy computers without Windows or alternative audio players. But the way to remedy those situations is not to force the companies to cripple their own products. The way to remedy them is to force them to stop abusing their monopolies. MS should not be allowed to prevent OEMs from installing separate media players or web browsers, it shouldn't be allowed to dictate terms that punish OEMs who do pre-install alternatives to Windows' components like WMP and IE; but neither should MS be forced to remove it's own media player or web browser from its product. It just doesn't make sense. You're saying to a company, "You are no longer allowed to sell the best product you can, because you misbehaved." That's a loss for consumers. What you want to do is stop the misbehavior and let others complete fairly, not cripple one company's product so that others look better.
MS' bundling of applications on the monopoly OS, and subsequent flooding of the markets of those applications, destroys the ability for others to compete,
I don't buy that. Back when I used Windows, it took me all of a day to realize I didn't like WMP and to install an alternative. And from the beginning I used Netscape because that's what I'd used at work... it didn't take me long to move from Netscape to Mozilla and eventually Firefox. Just because MS supplies certain tools doesn't mean you have to use them -- that's true on OS X (where I use Camino instead of Safari) and almost any Linux distro.
The point is... everybody bundles. The solution isn't to prevent MS from bundling, it's to prevent MS from locking out its competitors on Windows boxes.
Every Linux distribution I know of ships with the ability to install any of several different media players, or office suites. Linux has inherent choice built in.
And yet, most Linux distributions do ship/install with certain apps "bundled." This is especially true for the distributions touted as "newbie friendly." And these distributions -- not to mention legions of/. wags -- make a point of touting all these bundled apps as proof that you can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, with the same ease because these apps are installed by default. Look at the default Ubuntu install, Ubuntu being one of the newbie-friendly distros with a high profile: it comes with a Gnome desktop that includes 1 gui web browser, 1 audio player, 1 movie player, 1 audio ripper, 1 gui file manager, etc. This is a feature. Yes, you can install a different browser, ripper, etc., but you can do that on Windows too.
I think it's a double-standard. South Korea and the EU are trying to cripple Windows because they don't want Windows to be able to compete on a level playing field. Other OSes do exactly the same thing Windows does -- I mean, can you uninstall Finder from OS X? -- but Windows is being singled out.
By all means, punish MS for its anti-competitive behavior and practices. Punish it for forcing OEMs to exclude competing apps from their products. But don't cripple a product that millions of consumers like.
I wonder if Google looked to see how Perfect 10's site got listed on Google?
What difference does it make how Perfect 10 got listed on Google? The issue is that Google is displaying thumbnails of images located on other websites -- images that belong to Perfect 10, that those other websites stole from Perfect 10.
Michael
Re:Different numbers of download options between O
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
but I don't see how it is better than Safari, Mail, and Address Book which work together very well and work with a lot of other applications.
Perhaps if you're running Tiger or even Panther. But on Jaguar Safari is crippled and featureless... even Gmail displays a notice that you need to update your browser. But of course you can't because more recent versions of Safari won't run on Jaguar. And the version of Mail I'm stuck with is pretty bad as well. If you set it to block images you can't click on any URLs (well, you can click on them, but nothing happens). That means you either have to view everything plain text, which doesn't work very well with a couple of email newsletters I receive, or view full html, exposing you to bugs and ads. Thunderbird 1.0.7 is much more configurable.
I won't be installing SeaMonkey on my OS X partition, but I'll try it on Debian. I liked the old suite a lot, and only switched to Firefox because that seemed to be where the momentum was. On OS X, Camino rules. It manages to seem even more integrated than Safari, and its feature set is up-to-date. I didn't realize when I bought a Mac how quickly the OS would date. I won't make the mistake of buying another one.
Hmm... I would guess about 1 1/2 or so years ago. It was FreeBSD v5 something. The main stumbling block I encountered was disc geometry errors, which I read plenty about but could find no way to fix or overcome short of wiping my hard drive and starting from scratch. I didn't want to do that.
I still don't understand why BSD had a problem with my hard drive when Windows and multiple Linux distros didn't.
I know, It is comon belief FreeBSD is more difficult to install than XP.
As a rank amateur who likes fiddling around with software (purely as a user, not as a coder), I've installed and reinstalled at least a dozen OSes over the past few years, including Windows XP. There have been only two I couldn't get installed -- one dodgy Linux distro whose name escapes me, and FreeBSD. I even bought the box at CompUSA, so I could get the manual, which is worth having around even if you don't use BSD. So from my perspective, the "common belief" reflects reality. Perhaps BSD has improved in this regard. Apart from not being eager to deal with the frustration of failing at it again, another thing that holds me back is the file system issue. It's tricky enough to set up your system to accomodate Windows and Linux file systems without adding yet another into the mix.
the instructions are only updated to Mac OS X 10.2
Fine with me, as that's what I'm using... or rather, trying to use. There's so much that won't run on it that it feels like Windows 98 in terms of functionality. So I've been trying to decide between NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, and Ubuntu as a replacement for this aged, hobbled OS.
There are times when DRM is actually a good thing. For example, when restricting distribution of personal information, confidential documents, etc. Also when used sensibly to prevent blatant abuse of reasonably priced copyrighted content, thereby keeping media available and affordable for those of us doing the RightThing[tm].
I don't get this. How does DRM protect the distribution of personal information, etc. It can restrict the distribution of the file that contains the information, but it doesn't protect the information itself. Anyone who can open the file can access the information, and distribute it in a non-DRM'ed fashion. So what useful purpose does DRM serve?
And what constitutes sensible use? I've yet to encounter a DRM scheme that sounds sensible to me. Apple's iTMS DRM is often cited as a model of "non-intrusive" DRM implementation, but I can't fathom why people want to abide by a license agreement when they buy music. I find it ironic that Steve Jobs keeps repeating his "people want to own their music" mantra in defense of the iTMS model vs. the Napster/Yahoo/Rhapsody subscription model, considering that you don't technically "own" your music when you purchase from iTMS. I've read in countless places, including here on/., that all you have to do is burn your iTMS files to a CD-R and re-rip them to strip out the DRM, but doing so is a violation of your purchase agreement with Apple and therefore a violation of copyright law.
And that's what bothers me about any DRM I've heard about. In order to do what you want with the media (i.e., what you can do now with non-DRM'ed media), you have to break the law. I'd rather live in a nation with sensible laws that sensible people can agree are sensible, than in one where there is such a disconnect between what sensible people think and do and what the law says they can do. DRM seems to be the wedge that widens this disconnect, so I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on what might be "sensible" DRM.
For more than a year in the historical period of 1999-2001, I customarily used the original implementation of Napster to download and share audio files. Therefore, Napster or any service that models itself along those lines is a customary historic use.
i have no idea what day you're talking about, was it 1 day after the september 11 attacks? was it 16 days before christmas? nobody can tell since you americans always have to have your own fucking way of doing things, incompatible with the rest of the world.
That's funny because I can parse it whether it's written 9/12/01 or 12-sept-01 or 2001-09-12. I guess Americans are just smarter than everybody else. (Although, for the record, I was born in the U.K. and have lived in the U.S. most of my life. It's better here.)
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether.
Can't speak for the poster of the grandparent, but why would you need to stop listening to the music altogether? I haven't bought a major-label CD new since 2001. The last ML CD I bought new was Depeche Mode's "Exciter" (which, as it turned out, wasn't very...). Since, I've bought some indie label CDs new, but mostly I buy all CDs used. Neither the labels nor the artists who support them get any cut from those purchases, I still get to enjoy the music, can compress the audio to my own standards (rather than those imposed by some music service), and it's legal and cheaper than DRM'ed rip-offs like iTMS.
Plus, I like to shop local. I learned that lesson on 9/12/01, in New York City, when all the big box chains were closed and the only stores in my neighborhood that were open were the locally owned mom-&-pop's. Once in a while, I buy something on-line, if it's something I've been looking for and it's available at a good price. But most locations have at least one decent used record store and unless you're exceedingly picky or have fairly limited music preferences, you can usually find lots of good stuff to choose from.
Do you realize how much the environment is choking on throw-away tech every year?
I've been volunteering at Free Geek in Portland. We get donated computers from individuals and companies, save what can be reused and recycle what can't. I haven't done anything on the recycle end yet myself (except reject newly received machines that will end up in the recycle area), but it looks like a huge job. There's a lot of toxic crap to dispose of.
Regarding the article, Free Geek sets PIII/500MHz as a minimum for a computer it will attempt to rebuild. Anything slower gets recycled. Once a machine is rebuilt, we install Debian. Because of this, I was under the impression that trying to run Debian on anything less that a PIII would be difficult, at least, if not a fool's errand.
As a member of the 35%, I predict that I will continue to buck the trend in 2006. I have no desire for a cell phone, mostly because the people that use them are asses. Yeah, that's you, 65%. More to the point, having a cell phone transforms perfectly nice, bright, able, considerate people into asses, and I don't want to be one of them. I have yet to meet a person, even a few of my closer friends, who have not been thusly transformed after getting a cell phone.
My definition of "asses"?: people who are walking down the street with you, or sitting down to a cup of coffee with you, or come over to your home for lunch, dinner, whatever, and all the while take calls on their cell phones. I'm not talking emergency calls (as in, "I apologize, but I need my cell phone on right now because my mother is in the hospital and the doctor is supposed to call me," or "My wife is coming back from a trip today and was expecting some travel delays, so I need my cell phone so she can call me when she is sure about her arrival"), I'm talking everyday, garden-variety, hi-how-are-you? calls, or even calls with a more specific purpose that nevertheless doesn't need to be addressed at that very moment (i.e., a message would be just fine). People who have cell phones seem to lose all perspective about when it is appropriate or necessary to have the damn thing on. They seem to think it's perfectly okay to have it on always, except in a theatre, and interrupt whatever they are doing with whomever they are doing it to take any ol' call that comes in. That's an ass, and that, in my experience, is about 99% of cell phone users.
It's amazing how much is plagiarized from AP, Reuters, etc...
It also amazes me how so many self-important bloggers can talk about "replacing the MSM" with a straight face. This goes especially for political bloggers on the left and right. A casual perusal of Technorati or memeorandum on any given day is enough to see how much blog content is editorializing on stories published in the MSM. What the hell do they think they'd have to talk about without the MSM?
That's not to say I haven't found blogs worth keeping tabs on, nor to suggest that I don't think there's anything valuable about the blogosphere. But we are a long way off from so-called "citizen journalists" being anywhere close to the league of professional journalism.
Shouldn't Sony at least have to compensate purchasers with the amount those purchasers would have to pay if an infringement judgement was issued against them? The maximum penalty for copyright infringement is, I believe, $150,000 per song. If someone buys a rootkit CD with 10 songs on it, that person should be entitled to a maximum of $150,000 per song, for a total of $1,500,000.
I mean, isn't the crime Sony has committed at least as serious as infringement? Why should the penalty be any less?
Besides, here's a little shocker for them: most CDs have the lyrics inside the jewel case. Yes, fancy that. Anyone who is a good singer can listen to the rhythm of the vocals and pick it up, thus making it practically pointless to crack down on this when the bands and record labels are actively "enabling piracy" by giving away the lyrics as part of the package.
Except that the labels aren't "giving away the lyrics." They pay for it. It costs money to print the lyrics in the CD booklet. That's why a lot of CDs don't have them. This is true even when it is the recording artist who wrote the lyrics, although, in cases like that, it's essentially the recording artist paying himself, minus agency commissions. Of course, the way major label contracts work, all of the fees the labels incur for reprinting the lyrics ultimately get charged back to the artists.
As someone already pointed out, there are two separate copyrights involved: the copyright on the recording and the copyright on the song. Major labels usually hold the copyright to the recording, but the songwriter keeps the copyright to the song. The songwriter gets paid anytime the song is recorded, performed, broadcast, or reprinted in written form (except, of course, when those reprints appear on lyrics websites that don't pay). The record label gets paid only when a particular recording to which it holds the copyright gets broadcast or sold.
I never understood why the record labels don't see themselves at war with these publishing groups. The record labels should be actively encouraging local bands to cover popular songs as a way to not only discover new talent, but promote existing songs.
Well they were, in the beginning. Music publishers were actively obstructionist in trying to prevent the recording industry from taking off, similar to the way the record labels are acting today with regard to online distribution. They saw that it would diminish their profits, and they were right. Music publishing is relatively small-time today, whereas it used to be the only game in town. Now that the major labels have become accustomed to being the big fish, they don't want to lose control of the one thing that keeps them there: distribution.
Still, the record labels gain very little from promoting "existing songs." They only make money when their recordings of those songs sell, so why would they care to promote other versions of the same songs?
No, of course not, and Apple's path to its market position was achieved on its merits, a lot more honorably than Microsoft's path. My point is that now that Apple has its overwhelming market share, it isn't acting any more honorably than MS ever has.
You aren't locked into their content when buying their hardware. You're not locked into their hardware when buying their content
MS doesn't make hardware. By the time I switched from Windows to Linux, I had been using all OSS under Windows -- seeing how much better that software worked than the commercial/proprietary software I had been using is what motivated me to switch in the first place. So I fail to see how MS locks anyone into their content.
Now, if you want to specifically whine about no WMA support,
Personally, I could care less about WMA support. And personally, I have no use for an iPod... I have a small flash portable, which is all I need. Furthermore, I don't buy downloads... I buy the majority of my CDs used at a better price than $9.99, unencumbered by DRM, and uncompressed. So I have no stake in what Apple allows or doesn't. But to pretend that Apple isn't acting in a non-competitive manner is ridiculous. There is nothing "fair" about using your market share to block your competitors from taking advantage of a market you have helped create, and that's exactly what Apple is doing. It's not illegal -- or, at least, I don't think there's much suggestion that Apple has stepped over that line. But there's also no recognition from the Mac-huggers on/. that Apple isn't playing nice. It doesn't have to. It has a hot product and it's trying to maximize that product's profit potential for itself, to the exclusion of anyone else who might get in on the game. It is not, as has been suggested in this thread, acting in the best interests of the music industry, nor "saving" the music industry. And when someone comes along and suggests that Apple's intransigence might actually be slowing down the growth of a new sector -- and, apparently, that growth is slowing -- the suggestion gets a knee-jerk dismissal from the chorus. If it were MS doing exactly the same as Apple is doing, you can bet the reation would be entirely different.
Me, I have an iMac that's starting to show its age. If Apple keeps this up, and I see no signs that they won't, I don't think my next purchase will be another Mac.
By, for example, not supporting WMA, meaning that any file purchased from Napster won't play on an iPod. By refusing to license FairPlay to any competitors. And by making an end-run around RealAudio's attempt to make an end-run around what an iPod will and won't play. I believe Apple even threatened legal action.
Isn't that rather similar to what MS did to some of it's competitors' products... deliberately trying to break QT, for instance?
I just don't get why it's bad when MS does it, but no big deal when Apple does it.
So Microsoft gains effective control of the OS market and leverages that to restrict end-user choice by blocking competitors' products. Conclusion: Microsoft=Evil
Apple gains effective control of the portable digital music market and leverages that to restrict end-user choice by blocking competitors' products. Conclusion: Apple=Good
The parent makes an interesting about the importance of how well a desktop is maintained on a given distribution.
I completely agree, and I still think this presents yet another layer of complexity to users thinking about switching to Linux. Not only do you have to make educated guesses about what distros you might like to start with, you have to make guesses about what DE you might prefer, or whether you'd prefer just a WM instead. Choice is good, I agree, but so much choice, especially at the beginning, is confusing. I started with Mepis, largely because it was a live CD, and eventually decided I didn't care much for KDE. Mepis, at the time, didn't have much support for Gnome at all, and in fact using any alternative WM created some problems. So I moved on, trying different combinations of distros and DEs/WMs. It's not that I didn't enjoy this process, mostly, but it was time consuming and sometimes frustrating. It raises the bar considerably for people trying to find the right combo of distro/DE or WM alternatives that best suit them. I think more attention ought to be paid in distro reviews and recommendations about the favored environments or DE/WM agnoticism of various distros. You certainly do see it mentioned frequently, but very often reviewers and others making recommendations don't really care about alternatives to whatever their preferences are.
Wait a minute, you start your web browser more than once a day???
Is this where I'm supposed to say, "Your way of doing things is totally whacked; obviously, you're a moron"?;-)
Yes, I start my browser more than once a day... actually, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "start." The process is usually running all day, but when I'm not actively using it, I close the window (cmd+W). What I meant by "fire up my browser" was launching/relaunching it when I need it. Since there isn't one site I'm particularly interested in visiting most times I do this, I don't much care what it's set to, as long as it isn't an annoying site. The Google/Firefox page is fine, though I do most of my searches from the Firefox search bar anyway.
I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't users who have distinct home page preferences and for whom the concept is meaningful or useful. I just wanted to point out that many of us don't bother changing the defaults because we don't have much use for the concept, not because we think we have to start at Yahoo! or MSN or Apple or whatever our ISPs might program for us.
I really don't bother with the whole concept of "home page" anymore. These days, when I fire up my browser, I'm either clicking on a link from an email, or I already know what site I'm intending to visit, so it doesn't matter to me what site is "home." I can't imagine the same isn't true of many others, regardless of where IE or whatever other browser or ISP sets as home. I think a lot of people don't really care and would only bother changing it if the home page particularly annoyed them.
Given that, normally, the songwriter (or his/her publishing company) holds the copyrights to music and lyrics, how is that the record labels are putting themselves in a position to enforce lyric copyright?
It's not "the record labels," it's Warner/Chappell, a music publishing company. A company like Warner/Chappell pays money to the songwriters for the exclusive rights to control publishing and reprinting of songs and lyrics. Therefore, they are very much in the position to complain about copyright infringement.
Warner/Chappell Music happens to be an exception -- it's a very large music publishing company that handles the publishing rights for lots and lots of musicians. They are a subsidiary of the Warner empire (as are their record, film, and book divisions)
I thought Time Warner sold off Warner/Chappell, either with or before it sold Warner Music to Edgar Bronfman. I know they were shopping it around, anyway.
In any case, I suspect this action is to drive people to the official websites to get the lyrics. Many if not most recording artists' websites have all the lyrics available.
our music labels (as well as some other stupid lobbys) have decided to become about 42 times worse than the American ones
I'm amazed that people on both sides of the pond continue to refer to "American" or "European" music labels, when there are exactly four music companies owned by five multinational corporations that control the production/distribution of more than 80% of the world's commercially available music.
People, there effectively is no national music industry anymore. It's an international business.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. The question is not "should MS be punished?", the question is "is this the right punishment?" Forcing a company to redesign its product -- one that has been hugely successful -- is not the right approach. It is a double-standard. When Apple is forced by some government to license FairPlay to rivals in the digital music business, then I'll believe standards are being applied fairly.
You could run a business that sells computers, and you can install, say, Ubuntu on those machines
and
As MS has a monopoly on the market, and they are outright preventing competing software
Um, you don't see a contradiction there? If MS has a monopoly and can "prevent competing software," then how can I run a business that sells computers and installs Ubuntu? Either one or the other can be true, but not both. Sure, Windows is effectively a monopoly, just like the iPod is effectively a monopoly, even though people are free to buy computers without Windows or alternative audio players. But the way to remedy those situations is not to force the companies to cripple their own products. The way to remedy them is to force them to stop abusing their monopolies. MS should not be allowed to prevent OEMs from installing separate media players or web browsers, it shouldn't be allowed to dictate terms that punish OEMs who do pre-install alternatives to Windows' components like WMP and IE; but neither should MS be forced to remove it's own media player or web browser from its product. It just doesn't make sense. You're saying to a company, "You are no longer allowed to sell the best product you can, because you misbehaved." That's a loss for consumers. What you want to do is stop the misbehavior and let others complete fairly, not cripple one company's product so that others look better.
MS' bundling of applications on the monopoly OS, and subsequent flooding of the markets of those applications, destroys the ability for others to compete,
I don't buy that. Back when I used Windows, it took me all of a day to realize I didn't like WMP and to install an alternative. And from the beginning I used Netscape because that's what I'd used at work ... it didn't take me long to move from Netscape to Mozilla and eventually Firefox. Just because MS supplies certain tools doesn't mean you have to use them -- that's true on OS X (where I use Camino instead of Safari) and almost any Linux distro.
The point is ... everybody bundles. The solution isn't to prevent MS from bundling, it's to prevent MS from locking out its competitors on Windows boxes.
Michael
And yet, most Linux distributions do ship/install with certain apps "bundled." This is especially true for the distributions touted as "newbie friendly." And these distributions -- not to mention legions of /. wags -- make a point of touting all these bundled apps as proof that you can do anything in Linux that you can do in Windows, with the same ease because these apps are installed by default. Look at the default Ubuntu install, Ubuntu being one of the newbie-friendly distros with a high profile: it comes with a Gnome desktop that includes 1 gui web browser, 1 audio player, 1 movie player, 1 audio ripper, 1 gui file manager, etc. This is a feature. Yes, you can install a different browser, ripper, etc., but you can do that on Windows too.
I think it's a double-standard. South Korea and the EU are trying to cripple Windows because they don't want Windows to be able to compete on a level playing field. Other OSes do exactly the same thing Windows does -- I mean, can you uninstall Finder from OS X? -- but Windows is being singled out.
By all means, punish MS for its anti-competitive behavior and practices. Punish it for forcing OEMs to exclude competing apps from their products. But don't cripple a product that millions of consumers like.
Michael
I wonder if Google looked to see how Perfect 10's site got listed on Google?
What difference does it make how Perfect 10 got listed on Google? The issue is that Google is displaying thumbnails of images located on other websites -- images that belong to Perfect 10, that those other websites stole from Perfect 10.
Michael
Perhaps if you're running Tiger or even Panther. But on Jaguar Safari is crippled and featureless ... even Gmail displays a notice that you need to update your browser. But of course you can't because more recent versions of Safari won't run on Jaguar. And the version of Mail I'm stuck with is pretty bad as well. If you set it to block images you can't click on any URLs (well, you can click on them, but nothing happens). That means you either have to view everything plain text, which doesn't work very well with a couple of email newsletters I receive, or view full html, exposing you to bugs and ads. Thunderbird 1.0.7 is much more configurable.
I won't be installing SeaMonkey on my OS X partition, but I'll try it on Debian. I liked the old suite a lot, and only switched to Firefox because that seemed to be where the momentum was. On OS X, Camino rules. It manages to seem even more integrated than Safari, and its feature set is up-to-date. I didn't realize when I bought a Mac how quickly the OS would date. I won't make the mistake of buying another one.
Michael
I still don't understand why BSD had a problem with my hard drive when Windows and multiple Linux distros didn't.
Michael
As a rank amateur who likes fiddling around with software (purely as a user, not as a coder), I've installed and reinstalled at least a dozen OSes over the past few years, including Windows XP. There have been only two I couldn't get installed -- one dodgy Linux distro whose name escapes me, and FreeBSD. I even bought the box at CompUSA, so I could get the manual, which is worth having around even if you don't use BSD. So from my perspective, the "common belief" reflects reality. Perhaps BSD has improved in this regard. Apart from not being eager to deal with the frustration of failing at it again, another thing that holds me back is the file system issue. It's tricky enough to set up your system to accomodate Windows and Linux file systems without adding yet another into the mix.
Michael
Fine with me, as that's what I'm using ... or rather, trying to use. There's so much that won't run on it that it feels like Windows 98 in terms of functionality. So I've been trying to decide between NetBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, and Ubuntu as a replacement for this aged, hobbled OS.
Michael
I don't get this. How does DRM protect the distribution of personal information, etc. It can restrict the distribution of the file that contains the information, but it doesn't protect the information itself. Anyone who can open the file can access the information, and distribute it in a non-DRM'ed fashion. So what useful purpose does DRM serve?
And what constitutes sensible use? I've yet to encounter a DRM scheme that sounds sensible to me. Apple's iTMS DRM is often cited as a model of "non-intrusive" DRM implementation, but I can't fathom why people want to abide by a license agreement when they buy music. I find it ironic that Steve Jobs keeps repeating his "people want to own their music" mantra in defense of the iTMS model vs. the Napster/Yahoo/Rhapsody subscription model, considering that you don't technically "own" your music when you purchase from iTMS. I've read in countless places, including here on /., that all you have to do is burn your iTMS files to a CD-R and re-rip them to strip out the DRM, but doing so is a violation of your purchase agreement with Apple and therefore a violation of copyright law.
And that's what bothers me about any DRM I've heard about. In order to do what you want with the media (i.e., what you can do now with non-DRM'ed media), you have to break the law. I'd rather live in a nation with sensible laws that sensible people can agree are sensible, than in one where there is such a disconnect between what sensible people think and do and what the law says they can do. DRM seems to be the wedge that widens this disconnect, so I'd really like to hear people's thoughts on what might be "sensible" DRM.
Michael
For more than a year in the historical period of 1999-2001, I customarily used the original implementation of Napster to download and share audio files. Therefore, Napster or any service that models itself along those lines is a customary historic use.
I'm fine with this. You go, Senator Smith!
Michael
i have no idea what day you're talking about, was it 1 day after the september 11 attacks? was it 16 days before christmas? nobody can tell since you americans always have to have your own fucking way of doing things, incompatible with the rest of the world.
That's funny because I can parse it whether it's written 9/12/01 or 12-sept-01 or 2001-09-12. I guess Americans are just smarter than everybody else. (Although, for the record, I was born in the U.K. and have lived in the U.S. most of my life. It's better here.)
Michael
If you were truly taking a principled stand, you would stop listening to the music altogether.
Can't speak for the poster of the grandparent, but why would you need to stop listening to the music altogether? I haven't bought a major-label CD new since 2001. The last ML CD I bought new was Depeche Mode's "Exciter" (which, as it turned out, wasn't very...). Since, I've bought some indie label CDs new, but mostly I buy all CDs used. Neither the labels nor the artists who support them get any cut from those purchases, I still get to enjoy the music, can compress the audio to my own standards (rather than those imposed by some music service), and it's legal and cheaper than DRM'ed rip-offs like iTMS.
Plus, I like to shop local. I learned that lesson on 9/12/01, in New York City, when all the big box chains were closed and the only stores in my neighborhood that were open were the locally owned mom-&-pop's. Once in a while, I buy something on-line, if it's something I've been looking for and it's available at a good price. But most locations have at least one decent used record store and unless you're exceedingly picky or have fairly limited music preferences, you can usually find lots of good stuff to choose from.
Michael
Do you realize how much the environment is choking on throw-away tech every year?
I've been volunteering at Free Geek in Portland. We get donated computers from individuals and companies, save what can be reused and recycle what can't. I haven't done anything on the recycle end yet myself (except reject newly received machines that will end up in the recycle area), but it looks like a huge job. There's a lot of toxic crap to dispose of.
Regarding the article, Free Geek sets PIII/500MHz as a minimum for a computer it will attempt to rebuild. Anything slower gets recycled. Once a machine is rebuilt, we install Debian. Because of this, I was under the impression that trying to run Debian on anything less that a PIII would be difficult, at least, if not a fool's errand.
Michael
As a member of the 35%, I predict that I will continue to buck the trend in 2006. I have no desire for a cell phone, mostly because the people that use them are asses. Yeah, that's you, 65%. More to the point, having a cell phone transforms perfectly nice, bright, able, considerate people into asses, and I don't want to be one of them. I have yet to meet a person, even a few of my closer friends, who have not been thusly transformed after getting a cell phone.
My definition of "asses"?: people who are walking down the street with you, or sitting down to a cup of coffee with you, or come over to your home for lunch, dinner, whatever, and all the while take calls on their cell phones. I'm not talking emergency calls (as in, "I apologize, but I need my cell phone on right now because my mother is in the hospital and the doctor is supposed to call me," or "My wife is coming back from a trip today and was expecting some travel delays, so I need my cell phone so she can call me when she is sure about her arrival"), I'm talking everyday, garden-variety, hi-how-are-you? calls, or even calls with a more specific purpose that nevertheless doesn't need to be addressed at that very moment (i.e., a message would be just fine). People who have cell phones seem to lose all perspective about when it is appropriate or necessary to have the damn thing on. They seem to think it's perfectly okay to have it on always, except in a theatre, and interrupt whatever they are doing with whomever they are doing it to take any ol' call that comes in. That's an ass, and that, in my experience, is about 99% of cell phone users.
No thanks.
Michael
It's amazing how much is plagiarized from AP, Reuters, etc...
It also amazes me how so many self-important bloggers can talk about "replacing the MSM" with a straight face. This goes especially for political bloggers on the left and right. A casual perusal of Technorati or memeorandum on any given day is enough to see how much blog content is editorializing on stories published in the MSM. What the hell do they think they'd have to talk about without the MSM?
That's not to say I haven't found blogs worth keeping tabs on, nor to suggest that I don't think there's anything valuable about the blogosphere. But we are a long way off from so-called "citizen journalists" being anywhere close to the league of professional journalism.
Michael
Shouldn't Sony at least have to compensate purchasers with the amount those purchasers would have to pay if an infringement judgement was issued against them? The maximum penalty for copyright infringement is, I believe, $150,000 per song. If someone buys a rootkit CD with 10 songs on it, that person should be entitled to a maximum of $150,000 per song, for a total of $1,500,000.
I mean, isn't the crime Sony has committed at least as serious as infringement? Why should the penalty be any less?
Besides, here's a little shocker for them: most CDs have the lyrics inside the jewel case. Yes, fancy that. Anyone who is a good singer can listen to the rhythm of the vocals and pick it up, thus making it practically pointless to crack down on this when the bands and record labels are actively "enabling piracy" by giving away the lyrics as part of the package.
Except that the labels aren't "giving away the lyrics." They pay for it. It costs money to print the lyrics in the CD booklet. That's why a lot of CDs don't have them. This is true even when it is the recording artist who wrote the lyrics, although, in cases like that, it's essentially the recording artist paying himself, minus agency commissions. Of course, the way major label contracts work, all of the fees the labels incur for reprinting the lyrics ultimately get charged back to the artists.
As someone already pointed out, there are two separate copyrights involved: the copyright on the recording and the copyright on the song. Major labels usually hold the copyright to the recording, but the songwriter keeps the copyright to the song. The songwriter gets paid anytime the song is recorded, performed, broadcast, or reprinted in written form (except, of course, when those reprints appear on lyrics websites that don't pay). The record label gets paid only when a particular recording to which it holds the copyright gets broadcast or sold.
I never understood why the record labels don't see themselves at war with these publishing groups. The record labels should be actively encouraging local bands to cover popular songs as a way to not only discover new talent, but promote existing songs.
Well they were, in the beginning. Music publishers were actively obstructionist in trying to prevent the recording industry from taking off, similar to the way the record labels are acting today with regard to online distribution. They saw that it would diminish their profits, and they were right. Music publishing is relatively small-time today, whereas it used to be the only game in town. Now that the major labels have become accustomed to being the big fish, they don't want to lose control of the one thing that keeps them there: distribution.
Still, the record labels gain very little from promoting "existing songs." They only make money when their recordings of those songs sell, so why would they care to promote other versions of the same songs?
Michael
Apple's not forcing stores to stock *only* iPods.
No, of course not, and Apple's path to its market position was achieved on its merits, a lot more honorably than Microsoft's path. My point is that now that Apple has its overwhelming market share, it isn't acting any more honorably than MS ever has.
You aren't locked into their content when buying their hardware. You're not locked into their hardware when buying their content
MS doesn't make hardware. By the time I switched from Windows to Linux, I had been using all OSS under Windows -- seeing how much better that software worked than the commercial/proprietary software I had been using is what motivated me to switch in the first place. So I fail to see how MS locks anyone into their content.
Now, if you want to specifically whine about no WMA support,
Personally, I could care less about WMA support. And personally, I have no use for an iPod ... I have a small flash portable, which is all I need. Furthermore, I don't buy downloads ... I buy the majority of my CDs used at a better price than $9.99, unencumbered by DRM, and uncompressed. So I have no stake in what Apple allows or doesn't. But to pretend that Apple isn't acting in a non-competitive manner is ridiculous. There is nothing "fair" about using your market share to block your competitors from taking advantage of a market you have helped create, and that's exactly what Apple is doing. It's not illegal -- or, at least, I don't think there's much suggestion that Apple has stepped over that line. But there's also no recognition from the Mac-huggers on /. that Apple isn't playing nice. It doesn't have to. It has a hot product and it's trying to maximize that product's profit potential for itself, to the exclusion of anyone else who might get in on the game. It is not, as has been suggested in this thread, acting in the best interests of the music industry, nor "saving" the music industry. And when someone comes along and suggests that Apple's intransigence might actually be slowing down the growth of a new sector -- and, apparently, that growth is slowing -- the suggestion gets a knee-jerk dismissal from the chorus. If it were MS doing exactly the same as Apple is doing, you can bet the reation would be entirely different.
Me, I have an iMac that's starting to show its age. If Apple keeps this up, and I see no signs that they won't, I don't think my next purchase will be another Mac.
Michael
How is Apple "blocking competitors' products"?
By, for example, not supporting WMA, meaning that any file purchased from Napster won't play on an iPod. By refusing to license FairPlay to any competitors. And by making an end-run around RealAudio's attempt to make an end-run around what an iPod will and won't play. I believe Apple even threatened legal action.
Isn't that rather similar to what MS did to some of it's competitors' products ... deliberately trying to break QT, for instance?
I just don't get why it's bad when MS does it, but no big deal when Apple does it.
Michael
So Microsoft gains effective control of the OS market and leverages that to restrict end-user choice by blocking competitors' products. Conclusion: Microsoft=Evil
Apple gains effective control of the portable digital music market and leverages that to restrict end-user choice by blocking competitors' products. Conclusion: Apple=Good
I'm missing something here.
Michael
The parent makes an interesting about the importance of how well a desktop is maintained on a given distribution.
I completely agree, and I still think this presents yet another layer of complexity to users thinking about switching to Linux. Not only do you have to make educated guesses about what distros you might like to start with, you have to make guesses about what DE you might prefer, or whether you'd prefer just a WM instead. Choice is good, I agree, but so much choice, especially at the beginning, is confusing. I started with Mepis, largely because it was a live CD, and eventually decided I didn't care much for KDE. Mepis, at the time, didn't have much support for Gnome at all, and in fact using any alternative WM created some problems. So I moved on, trying different combinations of distros and DEs/WMs. It's not that I didn't enjoy this process, mostly, but it was time consuming and sometimes frustrating. It raises the bar considerably for people trying to find the right combo of distro/DE or WM alternatives that best suit them. I think more attention ought to be paid in distro reviews and recommendations about the favored environments or DE/WM agnoticism of various distros. You certainly do see it mentioned frequently, but very often reviewers and others making recommendations don't really care about alternatives to whatever their preferences are.
Michael
Wait a minute, you start your web browser more than once a day???
Is this where I'm supposed to say, "Your way of doing things is totally whacked; obviously, you're a moron"? ;-)
Yes, I start my browser more than once a day ... actually, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "start." The process is usually running all day, but when I'm not actively using it, I close the window (cmd+W). What I meant by "fire up my browser" was launching/relaunching it when I need it. Since there isn't one site I'm particularly interested in visiting most times I do this, I don't much care what it's set to, as long as it isn't an annoying site. The Google/Firefox page is fine, though I do most of my searches from the Firefox search bar anyway.
I didn't mean to suggest that there aren't users who have distinct home page preferences and for whom the concept is meaningful or useful. I just wanted to point out that many of us don't bother changing the defaults because we don't have much use for the concept, not because we think we have to start at Yahoo! or MSN or Apple or whatever our ISPs might program for us.
Michael
My home page in Safari, which I rarely use anymore, is the default Apple.com startpage. And my home page in Firefox is still http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:official
I really don't bother with the whole concept of "home page" anymore. These days, when I fire up my browser, I'm either clicking on a link from an email, or I already know what site I'm intending to visit, so it doesn't matter to me what site is "home." I can't imagine the same isn't true of many others, regardless of where IE or whatever other browser or ISP sets as home. I think a lot of people don't really care and would only bother changing it if the home page particularly annoyed them.
Michael
Given that, normally, the songwriter (or his/her publishing company) holds the copyrights to music and lyrics, how is that the record labels are putting themselves in a position to enforce lyric copyright?
It's not "the record labels," it's Warner/Chappell, a music publishing company. A company like Warner/Chappell pays money to the songwriters for the exclusive rights to control publishing and reprinting of songs and lyrics. Therefore, they are very much in the position to complain about copyright infringement.
Michael
Warner/Chappell Music happens to be an exception -- it's a very large music publishing company that handles the publishing rights for lots and lots of musicians. They are a subsidiary of the Warner empire (as are their record, film, and book divisions)
I thought Time Warner sold off Warner/Chappell, either with or before it sold Warner Music to Edgar Bronfman. I know they were shopping it around, anyway.
In any case, I suspect this action is to drive people to the official websites to get the lyrics. Many if not most recording artists' websites have all the lyrics available.
Michael
our music labels (as well as some other stupid lobbys) have decided to become about 42 times worse than the American ones
I'm amazed that people on both sides of the pond continue to refer to "American" or "European" music labels, when there are exactly four music companies owned by five multinational corporations that control the production/distribution of more than 80% of the world's commercially available music.
People, there effectively is no national music industry anymore. It's an international business.
Michael