Its a moot point. The law in question was modified in such a manner that it doesn't impact Apple. Basically, if the people licensing content to Apple agree that Apple doesn't have to make it accessable by 3rd parties, then Apple is exempt.
Like I said, the law basically doesn't do anything anymore.
I wasn't aware that Apple was being forced to license the DRM technology; don't they have the option to just drop the DRM (not feasible for them due to the RIAA, I know).
No, my argument was that Apple isn't being forced to give anything away. They can just drop the DRM from their files, or license the technology to competitors.
It applies to any and all music they've already sold (you can't unring a bell), so yes, they would have been forced to license their technology to 3rd parties.
How is requiring Apple to make music and video files downloaded from their iTunes store compatible with media players other than the iPod forcing them to give something away for free?
They're not being forced to do that. The DRM will still be there. They're being forced to give away their DRM technology to other companies (well, they were... the law was changed in such a way that it no longer does anything).
Your arguement appears to be that DRM technology isn't worth protection. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with the point being made.
ARG. I'll say it again. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRM. Replace "iTunes DRM" with "Mac OSX". Or "mp3 codec". Or "mpg4". Or any number of other technologies that required significant effort to create. Get it through your thick skull and re-read my original statement more carefully.
Isn't your implication kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? (Most companies don't develop original things, so we should keep the few that do from doing so?)
This has nothing to do with DRM. It has to do with forcing a company to give away something they created for free.
It discourages risk taking. If you have a neat idea that could take the world by store, but it will cost a bunch of money to create, why would you want to take that risk if you're going to be forced to give that technology away once it catches on?
It encourages copy-cats. Why spend the R&D effort developing something unique and original (something that may or may not be successfull) when you can wait for someone else to do that work, prove its viability, and capitolize on it?
The guy wasn't saying "You should leave DRM alone", he was saying "You shouldn't take technology developed by a company and force them to give it away from free after it becomes popular".
Processors waiting on the bus are processors working (at least according to anything measuring utilization).
If you've got idle processors with threads waiting to be scheduled, there is something wrong with the operating system's scheduling algorythms.
Not that such a thing was occuring in this case, as the summary does not accurately summarize TFA.
Also, the fact that a scheduler is also able to dispatch work to keep all cores busy does not mean that the scheduling overhead isn't impacting the overall performance of the machine. For that matter, there are any number of other OS factors that can impact perf in a multi-proc enviornment. None of which were measured or examined in any fashion...
Cripes, its amazing how many people are still getting this wrong. Microsoft is not including built-in support for HD-DVD/bluray playback. ISV's can (and probably will). This is no different than the way support for DVD playback was added to WinXP.
* a captured image will be different than the image displayed on the screen (unless you know of an hdmi based capture device) * a jpg image of suitable size for publishing on the web would mangle the fine detail they're analyzing * the output colorspace is not sRGB * your computer's monitor is probably not calibrated very accurately * your cmputer's monitor/video card may introduce additional artifacts or distortion
Storage space required to encode video rises exponentially as quality increases. 66% more storage space will only yield a small impact on the final result, all other factors being equal.
So while the biggest difference between the two formats is storage capacity, there isn't enough of a difference between the two formats for capacity to make a substantial impact on the final product.
Would you argue that someone who hacked into a banks computers and stole $20m in one shot should get off equally as easy? Are you arguing that the severity of punnishment should be directly proportional to the skill required to commit a crime?
They're smoking the "you need a computer fast enough to use a 'nextgen' codec" weed. They're taking content that requires 6gb on a DVD and compressing it down to 1.2gb with little/no quality loss.
I don't buy into jack shit; both your arguement and the media companies arguments are full of holes. Unfortunately, the only arguement that has the weight of law behind it is the media companies.
The media companies are right. People pirate music and movies all the friggin time. The media companies are also wrong, in that each act of piracy does not result in a lost sale (and may in fact assist sales).
The truth is, it is the media companies that broke the copyright contract by trying to restrict content further than what copyright allows and by bribing politicians to continually expand copyright terms. If the copyright owners do not want to uphold their end of the copyright terms, then why in the world should the people who use those copyrighted works uphold them?
There is no copyright contract. There is only copyright law. And politicians, performing their role in goverment as they do, write the laws. None of this has anything to do with DRM mind you... I find it somewhat amusing you keep shifting the discussion away from the technology you find so dangerous.
If copyright went back to a fair system where the terms were more limited than they are now and there was no DRM to try to prevent fair-use, first-sale, etc, I guarantee that "piracy" would go down. People like to spend money, especially here in the USA. There is only so much you can take away from "consumers" before "consumers" find a way around the restrictions.
What a worthless arguement. Piracy that media companies are concerned about occurs primarily within even the limited copyright durations you propose. The extended copyright durations are "desired" for the types of content that people actually DO pay for (see anything Disney), and is used to "protect" it from being monetized by other companies (not to protect against piracy).
DRM was created in response to piracy, not to preempt it. Your argument that it "takes" from consumers is also fallacious, in that you assume that consumers had something to start off with. If you think a product is a rip off, spend your money elsewhere...
"Content" is an abstract concept. For the sake of this discussion, it's probably easier to think of it as a file on your computer. A more general definition might entail something like "data that requires non-trivial/creative effort to generate".
Who gets to create these "rules" that governs access to content
The entity that creates the content (ie: whoever is responsible for the non-trivial/creative effort responsible for generating the content).
We already have _laws_ that govern access to content
Incorrect. Laws do not govern access, just as laws do not prevent people from speeding. Enforcement of the law is an entirely different process. And, as should be fairly clear on the matter of copyright, some laws are poorly enforced.
Go in to a music store and buy a music CD. During that purchase you do not agree to any explicit contract.
The content on a CD is also not protected by DRM. Purchase content from an online music store; you are granted a license allowing you to use the content on n machines or for x period of time (a contract, I might add, that superceeds any element of copyright). DRM is a means of enforcing that contract.
Of course, if people as a whole acted in an honest manner, none of this would be an issue. But, in the "lala" land that I live on, people aren't.
That definition encompasses a far greater set of concepts than DRM does. Your definition includes things as ubiquitous as the login prompt.
DRM is a set of technology which enforces rules governing the access or use of content, typically in a manner enforcing a contract previously agreed upon by both parties. Nothing more, nothing less.
What people like you don't typically like is that technology now enables the contract to be enforced on more than a good-faith basis.
I checked a few of the scripts I used to process the movies I've transcoded (the few that I haven't deleted anyway). It looks like my memory isn't as good as I thought it was -- the mix was about 50/50 (in a sample set of 4). Not that it really matters much -- they both yield the same result when all is said and done.
The DVDs that pissed me off were the widescreen DVDs encoded at a 4:3 aspect ratio ("Romeo & Juliet", "A Bugs Life", I'm looking at you... grrr).
My personal experience conflicts with your statement. All of the DVD films I've ripped from my collection are encoded at 30fps. However, you are correct that the format allows a DVD to be encoded at 24fps.
LoL... "Looks like crap on a 55" screen." Spoken like a true videophile. DVD's look great on HD monitors at 720p. HD is *very* marginally better. To most people I know, the quality difference worth about $50 bucks.
I'm NOT a videophile, and there is a substantial difference between DVDs and hi-def content on my 50" display. If you're watching on a 36" LCD or something, yeah, not much of a difference. But get much larger than that and you WILL notice. I won't go as far to say that DVD's look like crap on their own, but they do in comparison to a hi-def movie.
Now, the value of that difference may very well be $50. But, then again, most people would tell you the same thing when comparing a VHS tape to a DVD.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a moot point. The law in question was modified in such a manner that it doesn't impact Apple. Basically, if the people licensing content to Apple agree that Apple doesn't have to make it accessable by 3rd parties, then Apple is exempt.
Like I said, the law basically doesn't do anything anymore.
I wasn't aware that Apple was being forced to license the DRM technology; don't they have the option to just drop the DRM (not feasible for them due to the RIAA, I know).
No, my argument was that Apple isn't being forced to give anything away. They can just drop the DRM from their files, or license the technology to competitors.
It applies to any and all music they've already sold (you can't unring a bell), so yes, they would have been forced to license their technology to 3rd parties.
How is requiring Apple to make music and video files downloaded from their iTunes store compatible with media players other than the iPod forcing them to give something away for free?
... the law was changed in such a way that it no longer does anything).
They're not being forced to do that. The DRM will still be there. They're being forced to give away their DRM technology to other companies (well, they were
Your arguement appears to be that DRM technology isn't worth protection. Fair enough. But that has nothing to do with the point being made.
ARG. I'll say it again. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DRM. Replace "iTunes DRM" with "Mac OSX". Or "mp3 codec". Or "mpg4". Or any number of other technologies that required significant effort to create. Get it through your thick skull and re-read my original statement more carefully.
Isn't your implication kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater? (Most companies don't develop original things, so we should keep the few that do from doing so?)
They aren't 3DStudio renders or mockups. You can see a few videos of the device in action here:9 4
* http://www.thenewsmarket.com/preview/?story_id=51
The videos would appear to answer your questions/doubts.
This has nothing to do with DRM. It has to do with forcing a company to give away something they created for free.
It discourages risk taking. If you have a neat idea that could take the world by store, but it will cost a bunch of money to create, why would you want to take that risk if you're going to be forced to give that technology away once it catches on?
It encourages copy-cats. Why spend the R&D effort developing something unique and original (something that may or may not be successfull) when you can wait for someone else to do that work, prove its viability, and capitolize on it?
The guy wasn't saying "You should leave DRM alone", he was saying "You shouldn't take technology developed by a company and force them to give it away from free after it becomes popular".
Processors waiting on the bus are processors working (at least according to anything measuring utilization).
If you've got idle processors with threads waiting to be scheduled, there is something wrong with the operating system's scheduling algorythms.
Not that such a thing was occuring in this case, as the summary does not accurately summarize TFA.
Also, the fact that a scheduler is also able to dispatch work to keep all cores busy does not mean that the scheduling overhead isn't impacting the overall performance of the machine. For that matter, there are any number of other OS factors that can impact perf in a multi-proc enviornment. None of which were measured or examined in any fashion...
Cripes, its amazing how many people are still getting this wrong. Microsoft is not including built-in support for HD-DVD/bluray playback. ISV's can (and probably will). This is no different than the way support for DVD playback was added to WinXP.
* a captured image will be different than the image displayed on the screen (unless you know of an hdmi based capture device)
* a jpg image of suitable size for publishing on the web would mangle the fine detail they're analyzing
* the output colorspace is not sRGB
* your computer's monitor is probably not calibrated very accurately
* your cmputer's monitor/video card may introduce additional artifacts or distortion
Storage space required to encode video rises exponentially as quality increases. 66% more storage space will only yield a small impact on the final result, all other factors being equal.
So while the biggest difference between the two formats is storage capacity, there isn't enough of a difference between the two formats for capacity to make a substantial impact on the final product.
Would you argue that someone who hacked into a banks computers and stole $20m in one shot should get off equally as easy? Are you arguing that the severity of punnishment should be directly proportional to the skill required to commit a crime?
Except that isn't what they're saying. They're saying "Tell us what's wrong with it so we can fix it before release."
I meant to write 2.1gb. Stupid dislexia. :p
They're smoking the "you need a computer fast enough to use a 'nextgen' codec" weed. They're taking content that requires 6gb on a DVD and compressing it down to 1.2gb with little/no quality loss.
I don't buy into jack shit; both your arguement and the media companies arguments are full of holes. Unfortunately, the only arguement that has the weight of law behind it is the media companies.
... I find it somewhat amusing you keep shifting the discussion away from the technology you find so dangerous.
The media companies are right. People pirate music and movies all the friggin time. The media companies are also wrong, in that each act of piracy does not result in a lost sale (and may in fact assist sales).
The truth is, it is the media companies that broke the copyright contract by trying to restrict content further than what copyright allows and by bribing politicians to continually expand copyright terms. If the copyright owners do not want to uphold their end of the copyright terms, then why in the world should the people who use those copyrighted works uphold them?
There is no copyright contract. There is only copyright law. And politicians, performing their role in goverment as they do, write the laws. None of this has anything to do with DRM mind you
If copyright went back to a fair system where the terms were more limited than they are now and there was no DRM to try to prevent fair-use, first-sale, etc, I guarantee that "piracy" would go down. People like to spend money, especially here in the USA. There is only so much you can take away from "consumers" before "consumers" find a way around the restrictions.
What a worthless arguement. Piracy that media companies are concerned about occurs primarily within even the limited copyright durations you propose. The extended copyright durations are "desired" for the types of content that people actually DO pay for (see anything Disney), and is used to "protect" it from being monetized by other companies (not to protect against piracy).
DRM was created in response to piracy, not to preempt it. Your argument that it "takes" from consumers is also fallacious, in that you assume that consumers had something to start off with. If you think a product is a rip off, spend your money elsewhere...
And exactly what is "content"?
"Content" is an abstract concept. For the sake of this discussion, it's probably easier to think of it as a file on your computer. A more general definition might entail something like "data that requires non-trivial/creative effort to generate".
Who gets to create these "rules" that governs access to content
The entity that creates the content (ie: whoever is responsible for the non-trivial/creative effort responsible for generating the content).
We already have _laws_ that govern access to content
Incorrect. Laws do not govern access, just as laws do not prevent people from speeding. Enforcement of the law is an entirely different process. And, as should be fairly clear on the matter of copyright, some laws are poorly enforced.
Go in to a music store and buy a music CD. During that purchase you do not agree to any explicit contract.
The content on a CD is also not protected by DRM. Purchase content from an online music store; you are granted a license allowing you to use the content on n machines or for x period of time (a contract, I might add, that superceeds any element of copyright). DRM is a means of enforcing that contract.
Of course, if people as a whole acted in an honest manner, none of this would be an issue. But, in the "lala" land that I live on, people aren't.
a) service packs generally preclude major architectural changes
b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista contains a decent list of the changes/features in Vista
You act like DRM is somehow magically attached to anything created on your machine. Your speech cannot be inhibited by a 3rd party using DRM.
That definition encompasses a far greater set of concepts than DRM does. Your definition includes things as ubiquitous as the login prompt.
DRM is a set of technology which enforces rules governing the access or use of content, typically in a manner enforcing a contract previously agreed upon by both parties. Nothing more, nothing less.
What people like you don't typically like is that technology now enables the contract to be enforced on more than a good-faith basis.
DRM has nothing to do with controlling the message of content. It controls access to content.
And quite frankly, there are far easier ways of implementing such a sinister plot in a much more comprehensive fashion.
I checked a few of the scripts I used to process the movies I've transcoded (the few that I haven't deleted anyway). It looks like my memory isn't as good as I thought it was -- the mix was about 50/50 (in a sample set of 4). Not that it really matters much -- they both yield the same result when all is said and done.
... grrr).
The DVDs that pissed me off were the widescreen DVDs encoded at a 4:3 aspect ratio ("Romeo & Juliet", "A Bugs Life", I'm looking at you
My personal experience conflicts with your statement. All of the DVD films I've ripped from my collection are encoded at 30fps. However, you are correct that the format allows a DVD to be encoded at 24fps.
LoL... "Looks like crap on a 55" screen." Spoken like a true videophile. DVD's look great on HD monitors at 720p. HD is *very* marginally better. To most people I know, the quality difference worth about $50 bucks.
I'm NOT a videophile, and there is a substantial difference between DVDs and hi-def content on my 50" display. If you're watching on a 36" LCD or something, yeah, not much of a difference. But get much larger than that and you WILL notice. I won't go as far to say that DVD's look like crap on their own, but they do in comparison to a hi-def movie.
Now, the value of that difference may very well be $50. But, then again, most people would tell you the same thing when comparing a VHS tape to a DVD.