"Simply if drm prevents sharing then it also prevents portability between devices."
When you say it that way, I have to think you've made an unwarrented assumption.
For you to use it freely in any device that you own, all that's required is for each device to know that you own it, and that it's authorized to play your music.
In a way, this is what Apple does with iTunes and iPods. I can have my music on as many pods (devices) as I want, as long as each is registered as mine. So all that's needed to invalidate your assumption is some sort of cross-platform approach that all of your devices, not just pods, can share. Hence this article.
Now, sharing with OTHERS is a different issue, that would probably need to have some sort of limits imposed. (Is it fair to expect you can give all of your music to thousands of people?)
Of course, a library in NY started lending audio books on cheap ipod shuffles. So if you had to share, you could, as an example, have a couple of cheap players registered to you, and that you could loan out to friends as needed, and vice-versa.
Or a friend's player could recognize that music copied to it to "share" is mimited in some fashion (number of plays, timeouts, etc.). So you could share it and they can try it, but still not own it.
Or there could be a "sharing" fee when music is transferred from one person to another. Then sharing has a cost associated with it. After all, in the old days if you made a tape for someone, then someone had to have paid for the tape. Ergo, sharing had a cost.
The point is that there are lots of options that have the potential to be fair. What doesn't seem to be fair, unfortunately, are no limits whatsoever.
Do people not understand retail markup? That's $100 more RETAIL. The store and distributors are going to snarf half that. So all those posts who say that those parts are overpriced by $50 need to understand that those extra dollars are not going to MS. Not to mention that there's more to a product than wholesale component costs.
"Arbitrary limits like "you can copy this music 3 times" are not "fair use". If I'm not doing anything illegal with it, why should there be a limit at all?"
Because without those artificial limits, too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends.
So now we have a point between "anyone can copy it as many times as they want and give it to as many people as they want" and "no one can copy it at all". Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?
In short, too many abuse the system illegally. And yes, you pay for it, just like you "pay" for the security cameras, sensors, and guards at Best Buy. If no one shoplifted, then those "costs" would not need to be covered by those who did not.
BTW, the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices. Personally, I kind of like the idea of signing/encrypting downloaded digital work with the name and credit card number used to purchase it.
Yes, you can loan it to friends you trust... but they'd better be friends you trust.
Of course, ANY time you're operating near the edges of the flight envelope practically ANY failure will tend to have serious and potentially dramatic consequences. But my original point was more towards making, say, an emergency landing at a short field. In which case having a bit of extra margin in hand might make the difference between being able to make a successful landing... or not.
It could also be useful in carrier ops, where anything that reduces your relative "crash" speed may be a good thing.
Actually, upon reflection, I take back the part about our idustrial capacity not being somewhat obvious.
However, there was still a real question as to whether or not we would mobilize that capacity, as it was apparent that our country was firmly in the grip of an isolationist stance. And even if we DID mobilize at some point in time, we were sure to become entangled in Europe with our Allies first.
To answer your question, no, at that point in time our vast industrial capabilities were not obvious.
And to continue the analogy, yes, stealing the Ferrari might be stupid... but then again, if you took out the only cop stationed within 4,500 miles, you might just get away with it.
You're entirely right that they could have backed down -- but really... how many nation states (or people, for that matter) are going to back down and admit they were wrong? After all, from their perspective, we were the ones sticking our nose into THEIR business...
"...ask the question "what in the hell was Japan thinking when it attacked U.S.?"
What, no one studied during history class? The Japanese believed that they were being pushed into a corner by Roosevelt and felt that they had to act to protect the Empire. They were thinking that the US was going to slap them with a trade embargo, which we did, in retaliation for Japan's expansionist efforts in China.
They were thinking that, if they eliminated the threat posed by the 7th fleet, strictly a military target, the US would be unable to enforce the embargo, and they'd have an additonal 6 months to a year in which to continue their expansion and seize the resource areas they thought they needed. After which, they'd present us with a fait accompli, and at the worst, sue for peace with their new borders intact.
In short, they did what quite a few people do. They went after what they wanted, and rationalized that no one would be in a position to stop them.
Unfortunately, the American people were outraged by the sneak attack and loss of life, made worse by the mistiming of the diplomatic note announcing the state of war between Japan and the US, which arrived well AFTER the attack took place.
"We europeans think is't somewhat arrogant to argue as if you were the ones who could decide what we... are allowed to do."
First, I would love for us to participate so that more of them could be built and used by you, Russia, AND the US. Second, I didn't say you should, or shouldn't, build them.
Instead, I was bemoaning the fact that we (the US) seem to be relinquishing our lead in yet another field of high-technology...
Would not a reduction in stall speed improve short-field handling if needed? And your comment about high precision engineering also seems problematic. It's entirely possible that the handling characteristics would be almost identical, abet simply at a slightly slower speed.
"In other words, you have no full-time field reporters. You're not going out there and finding new stories, you're repackaging stuff from other sources."
Ah... I believe you're completely ignoring the concept of article SUBMISSIONS, by writers who ARE out in the field. Reading, rejecting, accepting, and editing article submissions is what editors get paid to do.
So unless you believe that every article in every magazine has to be written by a staff writer to be original, your assumption falls rather short of actual fact.
With "insights" like that, one can see why you post as an Anonymous Coward...
"...it will take about six seconds for the government to mandate where they can and can't go - for your safety."
How true! Why, even now they try to tell me I can't drive the wrong way in the opposite lane. Even when there's no traffic! And driving on the sidewalk? No way. And crossing that park yesterday. I mean, a Jeep is SUPPOSED to be an off road vehicle, and it was just a few ruts in the grass. Sheesh...
"The amount of money that would be spent... already ridiculously in debt."
Huh. On the other hand, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and India all seem to be viewing space as an investment in their future.
When you're in debt, you have two real choices. Reduce spending, or figure out how to get more money to come in. Any idiot can do they first and attempt to struggle on.
Both Apple and HP both came through the bubble. Apple, with difficulty, kept up its R&D program. HP slashed costs. Apple now has the pod, itunes, and the lion's share of a major market, not to mention other cutting edge technology like OSX and Final Cut Pro.
HP is collapsing, laying off people left and right, and it's core specialty seems to be how many flimsy colored-plastic facades they can make to "modernize" their computers and notebooks.
Who should we, as a nation, emulate?
Or is space yet another core competency we can afford to outsource, and eventually lose, to the rest of the world?
I want to know how soon they're going to be hacked and turned into spam remailers and virus distribution systems.
I mean, what better place than a graveyard to find a bunch of zombies!
"Do most people really need 120 GB hard drive? Not really..."
Speak for yourself. Every time I go out shooing my digital camera I come back with a couple of 1GB flash cards full of photos. Doesn't take many trips to completely and totally fill a 120GB drive...
If a VLIW X86 processor had a "native" mode, one would have to wonder if Apple's Rosetta technology could compile directly to it instead of X86. I mean, it would seem dumb to JIT-compile to X86, which in turn is translated to VLIW.
"Can somebody please explain to me exactly what Sun's incentive is to engage in a price war with Linux?"
Market share, sell more "works-best-with-Sun" hardware, service and support contracts. Consulting fees and development projects. Regaining it's image as a leading industry vendor.
PHP, Perl, Apache, mySQL, C, C++, CF, Ruby, Python, and many others all run under Windows as well. The point is not whether or not you're developing FOR Windows, but whether or not you're using a good tool for a specific job.
I think this does a disservice to a great many businesses, owners, and managers out there who do in fact care about other things. And if, in fact, many DO only care about money, the smart ones realize that they will make more of it off happy repeat customers than they will unhappy customers who complain about them to their friends and take their business elsewhere.
The Wikipedia article is, of course, just a tad biased on the issue. The reason the charges were dismissed is because the court didn't want to extend an interstate act, created to cover a loophole in the law, to also cover intellectual property theft, and felt no overwhelming need to do so, as federal law covering such already existed on the books.
And the section you cite, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft" is true, or we wouldn't have all these arguments. But I assume the court said what it meant, and that doesn't EASILY equate is not the same as doesn't equate to, or apply, at all.
At any rate, I totally agree with your recommendations. The best way to kill off the major labels is to legally support artists in other ways, including direct sales from the artist, from alternative distributors (like iTunes exclusives), and so on. Stealing music only adds legitimacy to their case in the eyes of the legal system and the government, and gives them the leverage they need to crack down.
Let people persue legal alternatives, however, and their only real choice is to change their models... or die.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this has more to do with protecting new content, that you have yet to pay for...
When you say it that way, I have to think you've made an unwarrented assumption.
For you to use it freely in any device that you own, all that's required is for each device to know that you own it, and that it's authorized to play your music.
In a way, this is what Apple does with iTunes and iPods. I can have my music on as many pods (devices) as I want, as long as each is registered as mine. So all that's needed to invalidate your assumption is some sort of cross-platform approach that all of your devices, not just pods, can share. Hence this article.
Now, sharing with OTHERS is a different issue, that would probably need to have some sort of limits imposed. (Is it fair to expect you can give all of your music to thousands of people?)
Of course, a library in NY started lending audio books on cheap ipod shuffles. So if you had to share, you could, as an example, have a couple of cheap players registered to you, and that you could loan out to friends as needed, and vice-versa.
Or a friend's player could recognize that music copied to it to "share" is mimited in some fashion (number of plays, timeouts, etc.). So you could share it and they can try it, but still not own it.
Or there could be a "sharing" fee when music is transferred from one person to another. Then sharing has a cost associated with it. After all, in the old days if you made a tape for someone, then someone had to have paid for the tape. Ergo, sharing had a cost.
The point is that there are lots of options that have the potential to be fair. What doesn't seem to be fair, unfortunately, are no limits whatsoever.
Do people not understand retail markup? That's $100 more RETAIL. The store and distributors are going to snarf half that. So all those posts who say that those parts are overpriced by $50 need to understand that those extra dollars are not going to MS. Not to mention that there's more to a product than wholesale component costs.
Because without those artificial limits, too many people seem to think that "fair use" is giving a copy to 5,000 of their closest anonymous friends.
So now we have a point between "anyone can copy it as many times as they want and give it to as many people as they want" and "no one can copy it at all". Given the concerns of all the parties involved, creators, publishers, and users, then what is "fair"?
In short, too many abuse the system illegally. And yes, you pay for it, just like you "pay" for the security cameras, sensors, and guards at Best Buy. If no one shoplifted, then those "costs" would not need to be covered by those who did not.
BTW, the key to your "multiple device" problem would seem to involve "ownership" of the material involved. If everything you owned "knew" you owned it, then you could use it on any of "your" devices. Personally, I kind of like the idea of signing/encrypting downloaded digital work with the name and credit card number used to purchase it.
Yes, you can loan it to friends you trust... but they'd better be friends you trust.
It could also be useful in carrier ops, where anything that reduces your relative "crash" speed may be a good thing.
However, there was still a real question as to whether or not we would mobilize that capacity, as it was apparent that our country was firmly in the grip of an isolationist stance. And even if we DID mobilize at some point in time, we were sure to become entangled in Europe with our Allies first.
You're entirely right that they could have backed down -- but really. .. how many nation states (or people, for that matter) are going to back down and admit they were wrong? After all, from their perspective, we were the ones sticking our nose into THEIR business...
What, no one studied during history class? The Japanese believed that they were being pushed into a corner by Roosevelt and felt that they had to act to protect the Empire. They were thinking that the US was going to slap them with a trade embargo, which we did, in retaliation for Japan's expansionist efforts in China.
They were thinking that, if they eliminated the threat posed by the 7th fleet, strictly a military target, the US would be unable to enforce the embargo, and they'd have an additonal 6 months to a year in which to continue their expansion and seize the resource areas they thought they needed. After which, they'd present us with a fait accompli, and at the worst, sue for peace with their new borders intact.
In short, they did what quite a few people do. They went after what they wanted, and rationalized that no one would be in a position to stop them.
Unfortunately, the American people were outraged by the sneak attack and loss of life, made worse by the mistiming of the diplomatic note announcing the state of war between Japan and the US, which arrived well AFTER the attack took place.
First, I would love for us to participate so that more of them could be built and used by you, Russia, AND the US. Second, I didn't say you should, or shouldn't, build them.
Instead, I was bemoaning the fact that we (the US) seem to be relinquishing our lead in yet another field of high-technology...
Would not a reduction in stall speed improve short-field handling if needed? And your comment about high precision engineering also seems problematic. It's entirely possible that the handling characteristics would be almost identical, abet simply at a slightly slower speed.
Ah... I believe you're completely ignoring the concept of article SUBMISSIONS, by writers who ARE out in the field. Reading, rejecting, accepting, and editing article submissions is what editors get paid to do.
So unless you believe that every article in every magazine has to be written by a staff writer to be original, your assumption falls rather short of actual fact.
With "insights" like that, one can see why you post as an Anonymous Coward...
How true! Why, even now they try to tell me I can't drive the wrong way in the opposite lane. Even when there's no traffic! And driving on the sidewalk? No way. And crossing that park yesterday. I mean, a Jeep is SUPPOSED to be an off road vehicle, and it was just a few ruts in the grass. Sheesh...
Americans by and large seem to be content to sit on their fat rear ends while they're throwing away the keys to the kingdom.
The question isn't whether or not the rest of the world is catching up, but why are we letting them do so?
Wait. Never mind. Survivor is on...
You say this as if it's always easy to tell one from the other....
Huh. On the other hand, the EU, Russia, China, Japan, and India all seem to be viewing space as an investment in their future.
When you're in debt, you have two real choices. Reduce spending, or figure out how to get more money to come in. Any idiot can do they first and attempt to struggle on.
Both Apple and HP both came through the bubble. Apple, with difficulty, kept up its R&D program. HP slashed costs. Apple now has the pod, itunes, and the lion's share of a major market, not to mention other cutting edge technology like OSX and Final Cut Pro.
HP is collapsing, laying off people left and right, and it's core specialty seems to be how many flimsy colored-plastic facades they can make to "modernize" their computers and notebooks.
Who should we, as a nation, emulate?
Or is space yet another core competency we can afford to outsource, and eventually lose, to the rest of the world?
One would think having a bunch of pictures that can't be viewed as pictures would raise a flag or three...
I want to know how soon they're going to be hacked and turned into spam remailers and virus distribution systems. I mean, what better place than a graveyard to find a bunch of zombies!
Speak for yourself. Every time I go out shooing my digital camera I come back with a couple of 1GB flash cards full of photos. Doesn't take many trips to completely and totally fill a 120GB drive...
Right. How can all those bits and bytes be "stolen property"? Every single one of those AOL members still has their screen name and email address... ;)
If a VLIW X86 processor had a "native" mode, one would have to wonder if Apple's Rosetta technology could compile directly to it instead of X86. I mean, it would seem dumb to JIT-compile to X86, which in turn is translated to VLIW.
Market share, sell more "works-best-with-Sun" hardware, service and support contracts. Consulting fees and development projects. Regaining it's image as a leading industry vendor.
Yep, no rational reasons whatsoever...
PHP, Perl, Apache, mySQL, C, C++, CF, Ruby, Python, and many others all run under Windows as well. The point is not whether or not you're developing FOR Windows, but whether or not you're using a good tool for a specific job.
I think this does a disservice to a great many businesses, owners, and managers out there who do in fact care about other things. And if, in fact, many DO only care about money, the smart ones realize that they will make more of it off happy repeat customers than they will unhappy customers who complain about them to their friends and take their business elsewhere.
Yes, but Jim Jones and the People's Temple, on the other hand...
And the section you cite, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft" is true, or we wouldn't have all these arguments. But I assume the court said what it meant, and that doesn't EASILY equate is not the same as doesn't equate to, or apply, at all.
At any rate, I totally agree with your recommendations. The best way to kill off the major labels is to legally support artists in other ways, including direct sales from the artist, from alternative distributors (like iTunes exclusives), and so on. Stealing music only adds legitimacy to their case in the eyes of the legal system and the government, and gives them the leverage they need to crack down.
Let people persue legal alternatives, however, and their only real choice is to change their models... or die.