But isn't almost every use of DRM in a work distributed to the public a "bad application"?
Almost every isn't every. Document dissemination by governments/companies where you want to absolutely verify that either they sent it to you, or you are the only one who can manipulate/read it are one case where well implemented DRM would be beneficial. Or, any place that the artist(not the publisher) wants to protect their work. Companies internal documents, to aid in ensuring that they don't get "leaked".
DRM will not fix all the problems in the above senarios, but it would be helpful as a piece of the overall solution.
The same thing going on here is what happened with research into nuclear energy. Nuclear bombs == bad(bad application), nuclear power plants == good(well, psuedo good now, all good when fusion gets worked out)
Linux will continue to gobble up servers --- Mostly from old UNIX installations. While they are taking a few Windows share points, its mostly from UNIX
Windows will continue to sort of lamely deflate in the desktop market --- If by deflate you mean increase their profits yearly, like MS has, then yes, you are right.
Analysts are actually predicting a massive increase in Apple market share, as much as triple --- OOOOOHHHH, from 2% to 6%. Watch out world, here comes Apple.
But more importantly, the direction in tech now is the web and digital media--Google and Apple's #1 markets --- They've been saying that as long as they've been saying "This is the year for Linux on the destkop to finally dominate". The web and digital media will not take off as long as the telco's in the US refuse to bring serious bandwith to the home. Until then, the desktop is still king, and the myth of the network is the computer will continue to be a myth.
Then burn them to a CD and rip them into whatever format you want. OGG, MP3, WAV, FLAC, etc.
DRM is not the cause of your problem, your own laziness is. And before you say the idiodic argument "But I lose quality", if you honestly think that on a portable MP3 player, with headphones, you can hear the difference, you are kidding yourself.
Wow, you debunked your argument in your argument. Isn't that some sign of the end? The simple fact that there are sites that have un-encumbered files, and there are open formats, and both DRMd and non DRMd services are making money shows that our free capitalist system IS working. The existance of DRM in the marketplace does not mean that all non-DRM files and formats dissapear.
Your fight, and the tinfoils that subscribe to your rhetoric, like RMS et al, should focus your fight on the real problem. And it is not the existance of DRM, or even the use of DRM, it is the corporations who are trying to eliminate non-drmd formats.
What good to any laws or locks do then? Laws and methods of locking things up have been around since man first could make them, and we still have crime and theft? Are you saying because they aren't 100% effective we should get rid of all laws and locks, or just the ones you don't like?
Do you understand what it means to be an elected official at all? Clintons personal opinions are not what should have shaped his policies. An elected official is there to represent the people of the nation, not just himself.
The fact that he seemed to be able to separate the two, shows me he at least had a basic idea of what it meant to be a good President.
All this will do is cause those companies to package their media as software, with the player as required hardware to play, and simply state "Our player plays MP3's, oh, and we have additional software that you can add on"
Except they aren't trying to compete on technical levels. They are whining about a Beta(Not FOSS beta, proprietary beta) piece of software, that doesn't include them as an option.
But, if you load up Firefox, which they heavily support and fund, MSN isn't even an option unless you add them in. I don't see them going up to the Firefox team and saying "You know guys, we should have Google, Yahoo, and MSN as the 3 basic choices on a clean install of FF considering they are the top 3 search engines out there" No, instead we get Google, Yahoo, Amazon(Which happens to be powered by Google), Answer.com, Ebay, and Creative Commons?
No, Google does NOT want to compete on technical merits, they know they have a huge name, a name that can beat MS's name, they also know that right now the stage is set so that any attack on MS is seen as wholy valid and a win for the little guy. Looks like Google's marketing department came straight from the old MS to me.
Bull, Google makes a ton of money off browsers defaulting to them. Every search brings them potential revenue.
Don't believe for one moment that Google's motives are pure and "do no evil". They know that if given a choice between a bunch of search engines, the average idiot will go with a name that they have heard, not because they are "better". They don't want to compete with MSN on technical merit, but based on PR campaigns.
My question to Google would be this, did you go to MS and the explorer team before you started to wage yet another "OMGZ M$ is the SUxxorS, everyone love Google" campaign? Or did they figure that this little tirade is yet another free ad campaign?
Except that to make said cavity, you need to add more material to the tank, making it heavier, and causing the need for more fuel, which will cause the need for the design of a larger tank, which will need to be tested, which will take years.
This isn's like insulating your house. Leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists.
With Digital Products it is very cheap to re-produce tons
Fixed. There is a large distinction. The cost of a digital product is the initial costs, which could be quite large + the reproduction costs. While pressing a DVD may cost $0.50, the material you are pressing on that DVD might have cost $100+ million to produce. So, even if you do sell 100 million copies at $1, you still have yet to break even.
I could have also sworn that at the time IE came out, the only other browsers were horrid and stagnant.
I could have also sworn that IE won a large portion of it's install base before it was integrated into the OS.
As for the other points in your post, well, I believe you have one thing right, someone is living in a reality distortion field, but it isn't the author of the article.
And a few hundred years ago, Physics couldn't explain, or even prove the existance of X-rays. Does that mean they didn't exist until the 1800's when they were "discovered"? Likewise, just because we might not have the tools to prove that god/supernatural exist does not mean that they don't. And, consequently, every bit of evidence for evolution, is also a bit of evidence for Intelligent design, as any change could simply be the result of the design.
ODF is what they mean when they say Open Format. True, ODF is an open format, but as soon as MS is approved for ISO standardization for their XML format, they will be also.
And to continue a thought you sort of hinted at in your response, most decent(by decent I mean good "citizen", not porn quality) would probably want to be in the.xxx domain, as they don't want children/passerby's who don't want to see thier offerings to see them, not because they believe what they are doing is wrong somehow, but they do believe choice.
That's where you are wrong, Google is not a search engine company. Google is an advertising company who targets their markets through search history and context.
Google does not create these cool things like Gmail, Desktop, Chat, etc to create software. They create them so they can put AdSense on everything electronic.
Yeah, because he couldn't possibly donate because he actually wants to.
And have you ever noticed that his donations are never publicly announced by him? But rather brought to light by others first? Also the fact that his name is associated with a charity/cause gives it that much more public focus, the Gates give much more than just money, they give their name.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't almost every use of DRM in a work distributed to the public a "bad application"?
Almost every isn't every. Document dissemination by governments/companies where you want to absolutely verify that either they sent it to you, or you are the only one who can manipulate/read it are one case where well implemented DRM would be beneficial. Or, any place that the artist(not the publisher) wants to protect their work. Companies internal documents, to aid in ensuring that they don't get "leaked".
DRM will not fix all the problems in the above senarios, but it would be helpful as a piece of the overall solution.
The same thing going on here is what happened with research into nuclear energy. Nuclear bombs == bad(bad application), nuclear power plants == good(well, psuedo good now, all good when fusion gets worked out)
DRM is not evil. DRM is not wrong. Improper application and bad laws are.
Fight the laws and bad applications of DRM, not DRM itself.
Linux will continue to gobble up servers --- Mostly from old UNIX installations. While they are taking a few Windows share points, its mostly from UNIX
Windows will continue to sort of lamely deflate in the desktop market --- If by deflate you mean increase their profits yearly, like MS has, then yes, you are right.
Analysts are actually predicting a massive increase in Apple market share, as much as triple --- OOOOOHHHH, from 2% to 6%. Watch out world, here comes Apple.
But more importantly, the direction in tech now is the web and digital media--Google and Apple's #1 markets --- They've been saying that as long as they've been saying "This is the year for Linux on the destkop to finally dominate". The web and digital media will not take off as long as the telco's in the US refuse to bring serious bandwith to the home. Until then, the desktop is still king, and the myth of the network is the computer will continue to be a myth.
then we have a potential Dikatana ^4 on our hands.
Which, if I remember right, is the 5th, and lesser known horseman of the apocolypse, Suck.
Call back when you realize you can burn the songs to CD and rip them into any unencumbered format you choose.
Then burn them to a CD and rip them into whatever format you want. OGG, MP3, WAV, FLAC, etc.
DRM is not the cause of your problem, your own laziness is. And before you say the idiodic argument "But I lose quality", if you honestly think that on a portable MP3 player, with headphones, you can hear the difference, you are kidding yourself.
Wow, you debunked your argument in your argument. Isn't that some sign of the end? The simple fact that there are sites that have un-encumbered files, and there are open formats, and both DRMd and non DRMd services are making money shows that our free capitalist system IS working. The existance of DRM in the marketplace does not mean that all non-DRM files and formats dissapear.
Your fight, and the tinfoils that subscribe to your rhetoric, like RMS et al, should focus your fight on the real problem. And it is not the existance of DRM, or even the use of DRM, it is the corporations who are trying to eliminate non-drmd formats.
What good to any laws or locks do then? Laws and methods of locking things up have been around since man first could make them, and we still have crime and theft? Are you saying because they aren't 100% effective we should get rid of all laws and locks, or just the ones you don't like?
Do you understand what it means to be an elected official at all? Clintons personal opinions are not what should have shaped his policies. An elected official is there to represent the people of the nation, not just himself. The fact that he seemed to be able to separate the two, shows me he at least had a basic idea of what it meant to be a good President.
All this will do is cause those companies to package their media as software, with the player as required hardware to play, and simply state "Our player plays MP3's, oh, and we have additional software that you can add on"
Ah, so we should wait until after they are tried, convicted, and already have a monopoly to critisize them...
Except they aren't trying to compete on technical levels. They are whining about a Beta(Not FOSS beta, proprietary beta) piece of software, that doesn't include them as an option.
But, if you load up Firefox, which they heavily support and fund, MSN isn't even an option unless you add them in. I don't see them going up to the Firefox team and saying "You know guys, we should have Google, Yahoo, and MSN as the 3 basic choices on a clean install of FF considering they are the top 3 search engines out there" No, instead we get Google, Yahoo, Amazon(Which happens to be powered by Google), Answer.com, Ebay, and Creative Commons?
No, Google does NOT want to compete on technical merits, they know they have a huge name, a name that can beat MS's name, they also know that right now the stage is set so that any attack on MS is seen as wholy valid and a win for the little guy. Looks like Google's marketing department came straight from the old MS to me.
Bull, Google makes a ton of money off browsers defaulting to them. Every search brings them potential revenue.
Don't believe for one moment that Google's motives are pure and "do no evil". They know that if given a choice between a bunch of search engines, the average idiot will go with a name that they have heard, not because they are "better". They don't want to compete with MSN on technical merit, but based on PR campaigns.
My question to Google would be this, did you go to MS and the explorer team before you started to wage yet another "OMGZ M$ is the SUxxorS, everyone love Google" campaign? Or did they figure that this little tirade is yet another free ad campaign?
Except that to make said cavity, you need to add more material to the tank, making it heavier, and causing the need for more fuel, which will cause the need for the design of a larger tank, which will need to be tested, which will take years. This isn's like insulating your house. Leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists.
With Digital Products it is very cheap to re-produce tons
Fixed. There is a large distinction. The cost of a digital product is the initial costs, which could be quite large + the reproduction costs. While pressing a DVD may cost $0.50, the material you are pressing on that DVD might have cost $100+ million to produce. So, even if you do sell 100 million copies at $1, you still have yet to break even.
Funny, I could have sworn that AJAX originated with IE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)
I could have also sworn that at the time IE came out, the only other browsers were horrid and stagnant.
I could have also sworn that IE won a large portion of it's install base before it was integrated into the OS.
As for the other points in your post, well, I believe you have one thing right, someone is living in a reality distortion field, but it isn't the author of the article.
isn't democracy wonderful
Yes, it is, because we get to do this wonderful thing called "Vote", and "change".
And a few hundred years ago, Physics couldn't explain, or even prove the existance of X-rays. Does that mean they didn't exist until the 1800's when they were "discovered"? Likewise, just because we might not have the tools to prove that god/supernatural exist does not mean that they don't. And, consequently, every bit of evidence for evolution, is also a bit of evidence for Intelligent design, as any change could simply be the result of the design.
ODF is what they mean when they say Open Format. True, ODF is an open format, but as soon as MS is approved for ISO standardization for their XML format, they will be also.
And to continue a thought you sort of hinted at in your response, most decent(by decent I mean good "citizen", not porn quality) would probably want to be in the .xxx domain, as they don't want children/passerby's who don't want to see thier offerings to see them, not because they believe what they are doing is wrong somehow, but they do believe choice.
And what about abridging peoples ability to do with their work as they please?
The FSF does not care about peoples freedoms, it has never been about the people. It is about freedoms for software.
You mean like looking at the short bio section at the end of the article where it states that MS is a member of ACT?
Did you read the article?
Google "accidently" leaked information to the world, so, if they cant keep their own documents secure, why should I trust them with mine?
That's where you are wrong, Google is not a search engine company. Google is an advertising company who targets their markets through search history and context. Google does not create these cool things like Gmail, Desktop, Chat, etc to create software. They create them so they can put AdSense on everything electronic.
Yeah, because he couldn't possibly donate because he actually wants to.
And have you ever noticed that his donations are never publicly announced by him? But rather brought to light by others first? Also the fact that his name is associated with a charity/cause gives it that much more public focus, the Gates give much more than just money, they give their name.