The fact is that the IPOD works that way to give apple control over the content people put on the device.
Any file in any format iTunes plays can be added to its library, and any file in any format that the iPod plays can be synched to an iPod. Where' the control?
They wanted to convert a temporary rental into a permanent copy. This is not fair use, has nothing to do with the DMCA, and represents a successful and appropriate application of DRM. If they wanted to keep the movie, they should have paid retail price.
Of course, by using iTunes, you can still do all those things. It will burned DRMed tracks to Redbook CDs, and iPods can do TV out (and then there's the Apple TV).
Sometimes DRM can be tolerated if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I'd rather have legitimate online music distribution than the ability to use Linux. That may not be someone else's choice, but at least it's good that several different options are available, right?
If I want to see an old episode of Deadwood or a new episode of The Wire, I fire up bittorrent. I really don't care if the big media companies crash and burn.
If that every actually happened, do you think TPB would pony up the millions to continue financing The Wire?
They can be found on Medium, they're just very rare because the notes hardly ever fall close enough together to warrant tagging them as allowing HO/PO.
On the most basic level- if you don't have food, you will die. If you don't have movies you might lead a pretty boring life but you will not die. If we put minor psychological discomfort on the same level as starvation, then *everything* is a necessity and the term is meaningless.
It's still a bad analogy. The MPAA has no problem with programs like iDVD that burn completely original movies, filmed with a camera, to DVD, so it's not "requiring permission to innovate". The only thing you can't do without pissing off the MPAA is mess with CSS.
They're just ahead in distribution. The question of how a media production will be financed under the "nobody pays for anything ever" model is as yet unanswered.
Like has been posted many times in this thread, the reason the navy withdrew was that Sealand had nothing more valuable to the UK than the money that would be spent resolving the issue, not because they recognized its sovereignty. This cost is extremely low, so if that ever changed it would be very, very easy for the navy to come back and "conquer" it once and for all. And the idea that the inhabitants of Sealand could fight them off if it came to that is laughable.
You're not just paying for records in the database, you're paying for the presence of your content in the world simulation Linden is running and the CPU cycles it consumes, as well as the service of making the content available to other users 24/7. Acreage and CPU power are linked because the simulation is quite complex and servers do have finite capacity.
If you don't see the value in this, try to make an SL clone with the same features and not charge anyone for its services while its userbase grows to current SL levels. Good luck not going broke.
There are *now*, but several years elapsed between the availability of consumer-level DVD playback devices and consumer-level DVD recording devices. Perhaps in the future those will be more prevalent. Also, every VCR ever sold can record. You have to buy a special DVD recorder which is another box and more expensive than the player to record on those. Thanks for overreacting, though. Slashdot could always use a lower S/N ratio.
DVD isn't a replacement for a VCR, since it can't record and only relatively recently has it become possible for the average Joe to put his own videos (from a camcorder) onto DVDs that play in a normal player.
Drinking in secret isn't civil disobedience. The idea of civil disobedience is to raise awareness that the punishment does not fit the crime; if the crime is secret and the punishment nonexistent then nothing has been accomplished except a violation of the law.
Last time I checked fair use didn't protect what these alleged pirates are doing. Fair use should protect format, space, and time shifting, not uploading. And the outrage at these lawsuits should be over the ludicrous penalties requested, the standard of proof or lack thereof, and the effective barratry, and the fact that the sad state of copyright law means they will continue for the foreseeable future.
They're obviously not responsible for securing the site, but that's not the issue here; whether or not it belongs in the Google index is the issue, and there's no downside to Google telling the webmaster how they decide that through a completely automated process. "You have links that look malicious on the page at this URL" or similar could easily be spit out by the google crawler and included in the notification of rejection.
Not if they continue to allow the music industry to impose restrictions on it. Apple fought against this tooth and nail and put the user's interests first wherever possible; that's why they have the market now. If Microsoft can't follow them down that road, they'll never catch up.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact is that the IPOD works that way to give apple control over the content people put on the device.
Any file in any format iTunes plays can be added to its library, and any file in any format that the iPod plays can be synched to an iPod. Where' the control?
So he's going to die after three days at his new job?
They wanted to convert a temporary rental into a permanent copy. This is not fair use, has nothing to do with the DMCA, and represents a successful and appropriate application of DRM. If they wanted to keep the movie, they should have paid retail price.
Of course, by using iTunes, you can still do all those things. It will burned DRMed tracks to Redbook CDs, and iPods can do TV out (and then there's the Apple TV).
Sometimes DRM can be tolerated if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I'd rather have legitimate online music distribution than the ability to use Linux. That may not be someone else's choice, but at least it's good that several different options are available, right?
If I want to see an old episode of Deadwood or a new episode of The Wire, I fire up bittorrent. I really don't care if the big media companies crash and burn.
If that every actually happened, do you think TPB would pony up the millions to continue financing The Wire?
Can they ever stop sneakernet?
DRM stops sneakernet; if CSS hadn't been cracked you wouldn't be able to do that.
Lots of people sign up because it's "100 TIMES FASTER THAN 56K" and then use it to check their email and surf the web.
They can be found on Medium, they're just very rare because the notes hardly ever fall close enough together to warrant tagging them as allowing HO/PO.
On the most basic level- if you don't have food, you will die. If you don't have movies you might lead a pretty boring life but you will not die. If we put minor psychological discomfort on the same level as starvation, then *everything* is a necessity and the term is meaningless.
Why don't they just scan over every mirror on the chip in a specific order? Then there would be less complicated mathematics required, right?
It's still a bad analogy. The MPAA has no problem with programs like iDVD that burn completely original movies, filmed with a camera, to DVD, so it's not "requiring permission to innovate". The only thing you can't do without pissing off the MPAA is mess with CSS.
They're just ahead in distribution. The question of how a media production will be financed under the "nobody pays for anything ever" model is as yet unanswered.
Like has been posted many times in this thread, the reason the navy withdrew was that Sealand had nothing more valuable to the UK than the money that would be spent resolving the issue, not because they recognized its sovereignty. This cost is extremely low, so if that ever changed it would be very, very easy for the navy to come back and "conquer" it once and for all. And the idea that the inhabitants of Sealand could fight them off if it came to that is laughable.
The keynote is tomorrow at 9AM PST.
You're not just paying for records in the database, you're paying for the presence of your content in the world simulation Linden is running and the CPU cycles it consumes, as well as the service of making the content available to other users 24/7. Acreage and CPU power are linked because the simulation is quite complex and servers do have finite capacity.
If you don't see the value in this, try to make an SL clone with the same features and not charge anyone for its services while its userbase grows to current SL levels. Good luck not going broke.
Neither format is going to win. They're both going to be killed by electronic distribution.
There are *now*, but several years elapsed between the availability of consumer-level DVD playback devices and consumer-level DVD recording devices. Perhaps in the future those will be more prevalent. Also, every VCR ever sold can record. You have to buy a special DVD recorder which is another box and more expensive than the player to record on those. Thanks for overreacting, though. Slashdot could always use a lower S/N ratio.
DVD isn't a replacement for a VCR, since it can't record and only relatively recently has it become possible for the average Joe to put his own videos (from a camcorder) onto DVDs that play in a normal player.
Why does the article keep mentioning Batman? He can't fly himself and uses jetpacks very rarely.
Drinking in secret isn't civil disobedience. The idea of civil disobedience is to raise awareness that the punishment does not fit the crime; if the crime is secret and the punishment nonexistent then nothing has been accomplished except a violation of the law.
This argument ignores the initial cost. It may cost 5 cents to burn a second DVD of a movie but burning the first DVD cost $150 million.
I see a "commercially viable synthetic gecko" on TV all the time. It tries to sell me car insurance.
Last time I checked fair use didn't protect what these alleged pirates are doing. Fair use should protect format, space, and time shifting, not uploading. And the outrage at these lawsuits should be over the ludicrous penalties requested, the standard of proof or lack thereof, and the effective barratry, and the fact that the sad state of copyright law means they will continue for the foreseeable future.
They're obviously not responsible for securing the site, but that's not the issue here; whether or not it belongs in the Google index is the issue, and there's no downside to Google telling the webmaster how they decide that through a completely automated process. "You have links that look malicious on the page at this URL" or similar could easily be spit out by the google crawler and included in the notification of rejection.
Not if they continue to allow the music industry to impose restrictions on it. Apple fought against this tooth and nail and put the user's interests first wherever possible; that's why they have the market now. If Microsoft can't follow them down that road, they'll never catch up.