What happened here is that someone found out that some people will continue to buy CDs if that were the only way to get lyrics. But the cost of this effort is so much greater than any gains they'll see. It's not like that is one piece of the puzzle to stopping large scale piracy. It's not even comparable to chipping away at it.
Their only hope is to come clean on pricing, availability, and a wide variety of interoperability features that consumers want. The longer they wait, the harder it's going to be. And meanwhile there are always artists with expiring contracts waiting to be swooped up by better labels, or self-publishing.
The only thing these labels actually own are: - CD manufacturing and distribution: This is an antiquated technology that is well on its way out. - A Stranglehold arrangement for concert venues: Well known bands can work around this. New bands might soon plan to sign 1 contract with an RIAA label, and then go it alone (roughly like Harvey Danger).
They no longer control marketing, or any of the new distribution options. Granted these "new distribution options" are all basically free downloads or illegal networks, but that's what they have to compete with. They could spend another ten years fighting those in court and be no better off. At some point someone will put together a better fee system, and begin to attract enough new and big name artists with expired contracts, and provide all of the features. If the labels want to survive, they had better be the ones to do it first. They still haven't even admitted they're to blame.
Yes, taking control of a 3000 lb. vehicle away from the driver is a good idea. It would be so fundamentally stupid it's not even worth discussing.
I understand this is just a technology prototype of a singular concept that would have to be part of a larger system eventually, but the only people in the world I'd trust to develop and test anything like this would be Formula 1.
The reason, in the case of the two examples given, is because they both have an incredible pressure on them to work properly and be secure. Meanwhile there is very little added benefit in going from their current beta status to production status because people are already using them in full force.
Not all betas last forever, but if you can release your product without the accountability of releasing your product, then it makes perfect sense. I don't really see it as a marketing ploy because I don't see any added hype either upon beta release or production release. If a product is publicly available without any significant obstacles, and works well, then it has been released...regardless of what they call it. Releasing it again isn't going to generate any serious momentum unless there are significant new features, and that is the same as with a 2.0 release.
Regardless of whether the labels get leverage, there's still a revolution going on. That revolution is somewhat required by the circumstances, and if the current labels and Apple don't want to get on board, it's their loss.
There are two key points regarding Microsoft's removal of the rootkit. 1) They are only going so far as to remove the driver that makes it work. The other 2 files will be left alone. 2) Only users of the beta version of Microsoft Defender (MS Antispyware tool beta) will get this fix. Of course when it's released, the release version will include the fix as well.
This reminds me of the way Libraries responded to portions of the Patriot Act requiring them to make information about patrons available prior to due process. They simply deleted their databases and stopped keeping track of what people had checked out once items were returned.
If Google wishes to maintain their "good guy" reputation, they could simply update their privacy policy to state that they only store aggregate anonymous information.
The cost (to Dell) of Windows licenses will rise substantially if Dell starts (really) offering systems without Windows. Don't you people know anything about monopo-nomics?
You want hi-res Hollywood quality (Lost) television on the cheap with no advertisements? Come on.
To say a service sucks, go ahead and cite things like low-resolution, klunky DRM, limited playback options, platform dependence, or anything like that. But don't complain that their either charging for it or showing ads.
When Frank pays somebody to get the site back up for him, someone should just rip the designs and spawn a competitor the community can trust and participate in.
If the bosses are really that clueless, make it a wiki of all the stupid things those bosses have done and said over the years and "go national" with it.
I would personally like to invite Google to expand upon their imminent presence in Oregon where we tend not to charge major corporations (Intel) squat for property taxes.
The only problem with that is that Oregon is already pretty tech heavy and we hurt the most last time the bubble burst.
The big problem I have with this model is that if I want to add functionality that my Windows distribution doens't offer, I need to pay more. And then I risk buying a version that doesn't offer something that the distribution I just switched from did have. I can't wait to tell my parents they bought the wrong version and have to buy Windows all over again or pay some $50 fee to add the ability to watch a couple of movie files.
With Linux, I simply need to download and install whatever my distribution was lacking.
I'm extremely skeptical of this. I had a hard enough time with Home vs Pro editions.
I should have added that most streaming solutions I found required buffering of the source. The only way I could see around that was to have the server be silent, and all of the clients (even if one was the server) connect using the same buffering settings. And even then you'd have to eliminate other factors like DNS lookups and software load times on disparate hardware. I kept coming back to the need for an embedded-like realtime system.
What I really want to know is which approach they use for synching audio between multiple rooms/zones. That's pretty much the biggest hurdle to designing a home-brew version. The only reliably synched method I can think of would be a custom streaming protocal that partially relies on LAN performance to keep many rooms/zones playing the exact same audio so that your ears don't hear delay from the speakers in an adjacent room. When I tested this at home I think I had to get down to 40-60ms offsets before my ears couldn't tell.
I'm sure they made a small chunk of change on the CherryOS scam. Now they're just doing it again and hoping to skim some cash before they fess up and retreat.
Someone needs to put them out of business for good if we're to claim any success in stopping GPL fraud.
Generic terms are allowed and no specific technical mechanism is ever described because the patent office doesn't understand computer systems yet. These kind of patents should be invalidated as quickly as possible.
It's currently impossible to determine whether a new idea is patented or not. Marking would do a lot to help this. So would registering products under the patent number for easy cross referencing.
I came up with a neat idea the other day for a bit of software, and then I thought how on Earth can I charge for this if someone could just as easily copy my idea in 2 weeks? My idea is innovative, I've never seen it before, and I would only be patenting the use of a particular trick for a very specific purpose and market. I wouldn't be blocking use of code or competition in my market space, buBut why bother building it if I'm not going to get paid?
I think software patents should only last for a year or two, but getting rid of them entirely causes as many problems as it solves.
Yes, but if a P2P software uses the best hash and it's cracked, all they would need to do is deliver an update adding 1 other type of common hash and suddnely the company has to create thousands of similar files that are somehow completely different but match 2 hashes.
So far the only collisions involve tweaking very few bits of the files.
Richard Clarke seems to be turning into a liberal version of your typical (predominantly right-wing media) attention whore who operates solely on negative discourse.
The world knows Microsoft's security record. Clarke really has nothing to bring to the table here.
I support everything he's saying, but he's leaking credibility at an alarming rate.
Slashdot Mirror
What happened here is that someone found out that some people will continue to buy CDs if that were the only way to get lyrics. But the cost of this effort is so much greater than any gains they'll see. It's not like that is one piece of the puzzle to stopping large scale piracy. It's not even comparable to chipping away at it.
Their only hope is to come clean on pricing, availability, and a wide variety of interoperability features that consumers want. The longer they wait, the harder it's going to be. And meanwhile there are always artists with expiring contracts waiting to be swooped up by better labels, or self-publishing.
The only thing these labels actually own are:
- CD manufacturing and distribution: This is an antiquated technology that is well on its way out.
- A Stranglehold arrangement for concert venues: Well known bands can work around this. New bands might soon plan to sign 1 contract with an RIAA label, and then go it alone (roughly like Harvey Danger).
They no longer control marketing, or any of the new distribution options. Granted these "new distribution options" are all basically free downloads or illegal networks, but that's what they have to compete with. They could spend another ten years fighting those in court and be no better off. At some point someone will put together a better fee system, and begin to attract enough new and big name artists with expired contracts, and provide all of the features. If the labels want to survive, they had better be the ones to do it first. They still haven't even admitted they're to blame.
Yes, taking control of a 3000 lb. vehicle away from the driver is a good idea. It would be so fundamentally stupid it's not even worth discussing.
I understand this is just a technology prototype of a singular concept that would have to be part of a larger system eventually, but the only people in the world I'd trust to develop and test anything like this would be Formula 1.
The reason, in the case of the two examples given, is because they both have an incredible pressure on them to work properly and be secure. Meanwhile there is very little added benefit in going from their current beta status to production status because people are already using them in full force.
Not all betas last forever, but if you can release your product without the accountability of releasing your product, then it makes perfect sense. I don't really see it as a marketing ploy because I don't see any added hype either upon beta release or production release. If a product is publicly available without any significant obstacles, and works well, then it has been released...regardless of what they call it. Releasing it again isn't going to generate any serious momentum unless there are significant new features, and that is the same as with a 2.0 release.
Regardless of whether the labels get leverage, there's still a revolution going on. That revolution is somewhat required by the circumstances, and if the current labels and Apple don't want to get on board, it's their loss.
There are two key points regarding Microsoft's removal of the rootkit.
1) They are only going so far as to remove the driver that makes it work. The other 2 files will be left alone.
2) Only users of the beta version of Microsoft Defender (MS Antispyware tool beta) will get this fix. Of course when it's released, the release version will include the fix as well.
This reminds me of the way Libraries responded to portions of the Patriot Act requiring them to make information about patrons available prior to due process. They simply deleted their databases and stopped keeping track of what people had checked out once items were returned.
If Google wishes to maintain their "good guy" reputation, they could simply update their privacy policy to state that they only store aggregate anonymous information.
The cost (to Dell) of Windows licenses will rise substantially if Dell starts (really) offering systems without Windows. Don't you people know anything about monopo-nomics?
Heavens! Commercials you say?
You want hi-res Hollywood quality (Lost) television on the cheap with no advertisements? Come on.
To say a service sucks, go ahead and cite things like low-resolution, klunky DRM, limited playback options, platform dependence, or anything like that. But don't complain that their either charging for it or showing ads.
When Frank pays somebody to get the site back up for him, someone should just rip the designs and spawn a competitor the community can trust and participate in.
>>Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups in the past.
And I've never seen either make any reasonably rigorous examination of reality as is basically required by these laws.
If the bosses are really that clueless, make it a wiki of all the stupid things those bosses have done and said over the years and "go national" with it.
Well, maybe this is the solution to promoting fresh new content instead of allowing studios like Disney to live entirely by rereleasing old content.
I would personally like to invite Google to expand upon their imminent presence in Oregon where we tend not to charge major corporations (Intel) squat for property taxes.
The only problem with that is that Oregon is already pretty tech heavy and we hurt the most last time the bubble burst.
The big problem I have with this model is that if I want to add functionality that my Windows distribution doens't offer, I need to pay more. And then I risk buying a version that doesn't offer something that the distribution I just switched from did have. I can't wait to tell my parents they bought the wrong version and have to buy Windows all over again or pay some $50 fee to add the ability to watch a couple of movie files.
With Linux, I simply need to download and install whatever my distribution was lacking.
I'm extremely skeptical of this. I had a hard enough time with Home vs Pro editions.
Is D&M Holdings the remains of Diamond Multimedia or something else?
I should have added that most streaming solutions I found required buffering of the source. The only way I could see around that was to have the server be silent, and all of the clients (even if one was the server) connect using the same buffering settings. And even then you'd have to eliminate other factors like DNS lookups and software load times on disparate hardware. I kept coming back to the need for an embedded-like realtime system.
What I really want to know is which approach they use for synching audio between multiple rooms/zones. That's pretty much the biggest hurdle to designing a home-brew version. The only reliably synched method I can think of would be a custom streaming protocal that partially relies on LAN performance to keep many rooms/zones playing the exact same audio so that your ears don't hear delay from the speakers in an adjacent room. When I tested this at home I think I had to get down to 40-60ms offsets before my ears couldn't tell.
I can't imagine it would be easy doing anything with a million tabs/windows open.
I too think this book is way off target for the slashdot audience.
Doesn't MacOS X use Samba? Microsoft has more to think about before they take down Samba than just the Open Source movement.
If Microsoft keeps trying to force companies to choose, the list of arguments against Microsoft will only get longer.
I'm sure they made a small chunk of change on the CherryOS scam. Now they're just doing it again and hoping to skim some cash before they fess up and retreat.
Someone needs to put them out of business for good if we're to claim any success in stopping GPL fraud.
I hope the OS doesn't try to do all this background management automatically while on battery power or while charging the battery.
- Generic terms are allowed and no specific technical mechanism is ever described because the patent office doesn't understand computer systems yet. These kind of patents should be invalidated as quickly as possible.
- It's currently impossible to determine whether a new idea is patented or not. Marking would do a lot to help this. So would registering products under the patent number for easy cross referencing.
I came up with a neat idea the other day for a bit of software, and then I thought how on Earth can I charge for this if someone could just as easily copy my idea in 2 weeks? My idea is innovative, I've never seen it before, and I would only be patenting the use of a particular trick for a very specific purpose and market. I wouldn't be blocking use of code or competition in my market space, buBut why bother building it if I'm not going to get paid?I think software patents should only last for a year or two, but getting rid of them entirely causes as many problems as it solves.
Yes, but if a P2P software uses the best hash and it's cracked, all they would need to do is deliver an update adding 1 other type of common hash and suddnely the company has to create thousands of similar files that are somehow completely different but match 2 hashes.
So far the only collisions involve tweaking very few bits of the files.
It will mostly house clerical staff and will be referred to as the Oogleplex
Richard Clarke seems to be turning into a liberal version of your typical (predominantly right-wing media) attention whore who operates solely on negative discourse.
The world knows Microsoft's security record. Clarke really has nothing to bring to the table here.
I support everything he's saying, but he's leaking credibility at an alarming rate.