" Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across their bow will be interpreted the wrong way."
What? This is a page out of the SCO play-book? Rambus play-book?"
Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across Lexmark's bow will be interpreted the wrong way." - signed third party ink cartridge refiller. Could be a similar statement.
Sounds more like a line out of a legitimate company's playbook. Apple is acting more like Rambus and SCO than Real. Apple is the one complaining that Real is using their proprietary technology. Sounds like SCO whining about Linux.
"Ah, that's the crux of the matter. They don't make a competing product."
Real competes with iTMS. You may as well argue that MS has a right to add hidden features to their OS to make their office suite better. Apparently as a monopoly, they don't. Apple has a monopoly on mp3 players. So which is it. You can't arbitrarily decide monopoly laws based on whether or not you like a company.
"Don't they see the hypocricy of complaining that somebody else's DRM is preventing you from applying your own DRM?"
The hypocrisy is that MS gets sued for leveraging their monopoly and the same people who say that's good say that it's ok for Apple to use a closed DRM format to allow iPod mp3 player monopoly to help out iTunes.
"If they did, then they'd have to support it on your hardware, and that's a money-losing proposition this early in the game. Even if you publish a very specific set of supported devices, you immediately take a huge support load hit when everybody and their brother starts bringing in their devices that kinda-sorta-but-not-quite made the list. Plus, you get the negative PR that comes with, "I bought the new OSX, but it kept crashing on my Crapposan P4 that I got from Ebay.""
I disagree. The average person doesn't build his own machine. So if Apple published a list of compliant hardware, companies like Dell and HP would start selling dual boot machines or maybe even MacOS only machines, and take care of support like any other Apple reseller.
"Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?"
So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too.
"If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened."
Apple shouldn't be required to share, but if someone reverse engineers their product to make something that is compatible, do you really believe Apple should have legal grounds to sue?
"...about a lawsuit from Apple, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and break the DRM in the first place?
Can't they find another way to make money?"
That's like telling someone wanting to make an Office suite compatible with MS Office to find another way to make money instead of reverse engineering the.doc,.xls,.ppt formats.
" The exploits came out after the announcement and not before. It begs the question, do we need to give M$ credit for pushing the patch before the exploit became common knowledge? Compare this to Cisco who tried to squash recent publicizing of their vulnerability."
I think it reinforces the idea that people create exploits by reverse engineering patches. MS was right on this one.
"I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?"
" High definition is not good enough increment in technological value to supplant present day DVD's with a crippled DRM technology."
If a person buys/rents a DVD and it works, they won't consider the technology crippled. On the other hand, if there is an obvious difference in picture quality between standard DVD and the new technology, the new technology will win. Apple has proven people are willing to accept DRM if it isn't noticable for most of the things people normally do.
No one has a right to the product of someone elses labor for free. If you steal an e-book that's no better than walking out of the university bookstore with a stolen copy. Why people think making an electronic copy is any better is beyond me. Believe it or not there will still be libraries in the future, and if the sw is done correctly, it will be possible to loan books to others. Loaning a book to someone is different than loaning a copy of a book to someone. Loaning your computer to someone else to read your e-books is not illegal, and no one is claiming it should be.
"but hey, it was a chance to beat up on sand niggers, and beating the shit out of niggers, spics, gooks, chinks and japs is what the Republitard party is all about, which is why they have such a hard-on for racial profiling."
In 2001, Republican's were criticized for not acting on information that Bin Laden was going to attack the US. Now you want to ignore the same type of information, because it's easier just to label people as racicts than to actually think about what is going on."
" There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of wifi access points in a 30 mile radius of me right now. With wimax, all of these will be interfering with my signal. Can someone explain to me how I would get anything better than modem-like speeds with all of this interference?"
WiMAX is in a regulated band that does not overlap WiFi.
" The first amendment gives you the right to free SPEECH, not free listeners.
Just because you say it doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) has to listen to you. "
I think the issue is, why does a govt. entity, get to arbitrarily censor mail sent to students, since it is a public university? This is the definition of a 1st amendment violation. This is what happens when the govt. is running institutions that should be private.
" Since when does the constitution provide the right to require the government to help you deliver an unlimited amount of commercial advertising? For the last time, SPAM IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! Popular message or not, no mail administrator is required to deliver mail. The spammer is not being restricted from sending mail at all. Free speech does not entitle the speaker to a free platform."
Here's the problem. No private entity is required to deliver spam to you, as you point out. However, a public school is run by the govt. What right does the govt. have to decide for you as a student what e-mail you should read or not. Clearly this is censorship and a 1st amendment violation. This is exactly what the founding fathers worried about, govt. entities censoring speech. These types of dilemmmas become inevitable when we allow govt. to run institutions that should be run by private citizens.
" It's a first step towards acknowledging that corporations should have no rights - at least not unless they're willing to take on responsibilities too.
(Yes, I'm a hopeless optimist...)"
Does that mean you want the Mozilla foundation code to lose copyright protection? They're not a corporation, but they certainly are not an individual, and they're spawning some sort of corporate entity.
" They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
-- Benjamin Franklin"
Liberty cannot exist without security. Therefore, this statement makes no sense. Threat of physical harm while performing an activity that one should be free to do, dissuades someone from performing that activity. Therefore, liberty is lost.
" Except that 99.99% of the bands/artists in the world DON'T live from music. Most of them have jobs. And yes, the ARTISTS deserve to be paid. Why do I have to pay a RECORD COMPANY for something they didn't do, but rather the artists?"
The record company invested in the band and gave them the resources needed to make it big. They deserve a return on their investment.
See this article. Cooper's source was revealed because Time editors chose to reveal that source, against Cooper's wishes, in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling. Cooper should not have trusted his editors, if he really wanted to protect his source. No amount of technological security will help if you are betrayed by your own people.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the DMCA prevented selling tools to circumvent copyright protection. Clearly, this is not what Real is doing.
" Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across their bow will be interpreted the wrong way."
What? This is a page out of the SCO play-book? Rambus play-book?"
Dear SEC: "We're worried that the shot we fired across Lexmark's bow will be interpreted the wrong way." - signed third party ink cartridge refiller.
Could be a similar statement.
Sounds more like a line out of a legitimate company's playbook. Apple is acting more like Rambus and SCO than Real. Apple is the one complaining that Real is using their proprietary technology. Sounds like SCO whining about Linux.
"Ah, that's the crux of the matter. They don't make a competing product."
Real competes with iTMS. You may as well argue that MS has a right to add hidden features to their OS to make their office suite better. Apparently as a monopoly, they don't. Apple has a monopoly on mp3 players. So which is it. You can't arbitrarily decide monopoly laws based on whether or not you like a company.
"Don't they see the hypocricy of complaining that somebody else's DRM is preventing you from applying your own DRM?"
The hypocrisy is that MS gets sued for leveraging their monopoly and the same people who say that's good say that it's ok for Apple to use a closed DRM format to allow iPod mp3 player monopoly to help out iTunes.
"If they did, then they'd have to support it on your hardware, and that's a money-losing proposition this early in the game. Even if you publish a very specific set of supported devices, you immediately take a huge support load hit when everybody and their brother starts bringing in their devices that kinda-sorta-but-not-quite made the list. Plus, you get the negative PR that comes with, "I bought the new OSX, but it kept crashing on my Crapposan P4 that I got from Ebay.""
I disagree. The average person doesn't build his own machine. So if Apple published a list of compliant hardware, companies like Dell and HP would start selling dual boot machines or maybe even MacOS only machines, and take care of support like any other Apple reseller.
"Apple built a product (iTunes + iPod) that a lot of consumers love (marketshare speaks much louder than OGG support, open-ness, etc.), and Real wants a piece of that because very few are using their service. Why is it that we think just because it involves a computer or teh intarweb that it should all be fair game (or fair play, to pull a pun)?"
So then you must agree that it's good for Microsoft to use closed file formats for Office and that Lexmark should be able to sue competitors for refilling their ink cartridges. Also, cracking the DVD encrpytion scheme to make a Linux DVD player must be wrong too.
"If I create a product that is easier to use, looks good, and appeals to more consumers than everyone else's product, why should I have to share? I mean, if in the mean time I was running around telling the music companies that they could only use my service or could get some sort of incentive to not allow other services (i.e., the allegations behind much of the Wintel monopoly) that'd be one thing, but it appears that nothing of that sort happened."
Apple shouldn't be required to share, but if someone reverse engineers their product to make something that is compatible, do you really believe Apple should have legal grounds to sue?
" ...about a lawsuit from Apple, and if such a lawsuit would so dramatically affect their bottom line, why did they go ahead and break the DRM in the first place?
.doc, .xls, .ppt formats.
Can't they find another way to make money?"
That's like telling someone wanting to make an Office suite compatible with MS Office to find another way to make money instead of reverse engineering the
" One has to wonder if Apple had any 'insight' to these plans when they signed the deal."
Why would Intel care about what a 4% marketshare personal computer manufacturer wants. Apple is a nobody compared to Dell and HP.
" The exploits came out after the announcement and not before. It begs the question, do we need to give M$ credit for pushing the patch before the exploit became common knowledge? Compare this to Cisco who tried to squash recent publicizing of their vulnerability."
I think it reinforces the idea that people create exploits by reverse engineering patches. MS was right on this one.
" Once again, other countries are moving ahead, acquiring tomorrow's technology. Meanwhile, the US remains more dependent than ever on Big Oil.
"
I didn't know California had seceded from the Union. Certainly plenty of people there that would like to.
"I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?"
Windows works just fine for me.
" High definition is not good enough increment in technological value to supplant present day DVD's with a crippled DRM technology."
If a person buys/rents a DVD and it works, they won't consider the technology crippled. On the other hand, if there is an obvious difference in picture quality between standard DVD and the new technology, the new technology will win. Apple has proven people are willing to accept DRM if it isn't noticable for most of the things people normally do.
No one has a right to the product of someone elses labor for free. If you steal an e-book that's no better than walking out of the university bookstore with a stolen copy. Why people think making an electronic copy is any better is beyond me. Believe it or not there will still be libraries in the future, and if the sw is done correctly, it will be possible to loan books to others. Loaning a book to someone is different than loaning a copy of a book to someone. Loaning your computer to someone else to read your e-books is not illegal, and no one is claiming it should be.
"but hey, it was a chance to beat up on sand niggers, and beating the shit out of niggers, spics, gooks, chinks and japs is what the Republitard party is all about, which is why they have such a hard-on for racial profiling."
In 2001, Republican's were criticized for not acting on information that Bin Laden was going to attack the US. Now you want to ignore the same type of information, because it's easier just to label people as racicts than to actually think about what is going on."
Why go through all the trouble and expense of making hardware incompatible with pc hardware, when it's cheaper to just implement the DRM scheme?
These are not the Palladium chips you are looking for.
" There are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of wifi access points in a 30 mile radius of me right now. With wimax, all of these will be interfering with my signal. Can someone explain to me how I would get anything better than modem-like speeds with all of this interference?"
WiMAX is in a regulated band that does not overlap WiFi.
" The first amendment gives you the right to free SPEECH, not free listeners.
Just because you say it doesn't mean everyone (or anyone) has to listen to you.
"
I think the issue is, why does a govt. entity, get to arbitrarily censor mail sent to students, since it is a public university? This is the definition of a 1st amendment violation. This is what happens when the govt. is running institutions that should be private.
" Since when does the constitution provide the right to require the government to help you deliver an unlimited amount of commercial advertising? For the last time, SPAM IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE! Popular message or not, no mail administrator is required to deliver mail. The spammer is not being restricted from sending mail at all. Free speech does not entitle the speaker to a free platform."
Here's the problem. No private entity is required to deliver spam to you, as you point out. However, a public school is run by the govt. What right does the govt. have to decide for you as a student what e-mail you should read or not. Clearly this is censorship and a 1st amendment violation. This is exactly what the founding fathers worried about, govt. entities censoring speech. These types of dilemmmas become inevitable when we allow govt. to run institutions that should be run by private citizens.
" It's a first step towards acknowledging that corporations should have no rights - at least not unless they're willing to take on responsibilities too.
(Yes, I'm a hopeless optimist...)"
Does that mean you want the Mozilla foundation code to lose copyright protection? They're not a corporation, but they certainly are not an individual, and they're spawning some sort of corporate entity.
"Undercover CIA agents feel the same way: No amount of technological security will help if you are betrayed by your own people."
Exactly. Security starts with figuring out who you can trust.
when Yahoo had a start page long before Google?
" They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
-- Benjamin Franklin"
Liberty cannot exist without security. Therefore, this statement makes no sense. Threat of physical harm while performing an activity that one should be free to do, dissuades someone from performing that activity. Therefore, liberty is lost.
" Except that 99.99% of the bands/artists in the world DON'T live from music. Most of them have jobs.
And yes, the ARTISTS deserve to be paid. Why do I have to pay a RECORD COMPANY for something they didn't do, but rather the artists?"
The record company invested in the band and gave them the resources needed to make it big. They deserve a return on their investment.
See this article. Cooper's source was revealed because Time editors chose to reveal that source, against Cooper's wishes, in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling. Cooper should not have trusted his editors, if he really wanted to protect his source. No amount of technological security will help if you are betrayed by your own people.