iTunes does this, it is great, get off your high horse. The DRM is practically not there. Unless you intend to give all of your 'friends' a copy (making you a real, actual, pirate), you won't run into any problems with it. That it doesn't work on Linux is really a matter of time and mindshare. Linux is not mainstream (hell, Apple isn't mainstream!).
I know the DRM's practically not there, but that being the case, why isn't it just not there, period? Then it wouldn't even be an issue to get it to work on Linux, Windows, etc, you could just have the files. I realize it's there because the RIAA insists on it, but as everyone points out, it's a piece of cake to remove it. Surely the RIAA must know this. That slightly idealistic and slightly pratical barrier is all that keeps me away from iTunes.
When I can pay $1 for an Ogg file (or even MP3), I'll be happy to do so (even from Microsoft). It's simple, and it's amazing nobody gets it: cut the DRM crap, and people will pay for the convenience and legitimacy.
It's impossible to stop P2P, but P2P is very inconvenient, and people would rather not infringe copyrights. But DRM is much, much more inconvenient, and it shows the company's greed and mistrust of its customers. DRM does nothing to stop copyright infringement, and everything to curtail fair use. Fair use and convenience are one and the same, and and convenience sells.
iTunes is closest to this, but it still has DRM crap, won't work on Linux, etc. Whatever Microsoft does is bound to be a step backwards, because they are talking about expiration, the format will probably be WMA, you won't be able to switch services, your music will die when you unsubscribe, you won't be able to use it on anything but Windows and Microsoft-blessed hardware, etc.
Hopefully something even more open will come along, and do even better than iTunes, and things will become sane.
What if it was just an honest mistake? They (say that they) will do the right thing when they were called on it. If they didn't mean any harm, suing them won't help the cause, because it will scare companies away from the GPL.
Lawsuits as a warning to others, and establishing precedent for the GPL against a smallish company could be helpful, but it makes me feel like the RIAA.
I read the kernel traffic with this discussion. The Windows binary drivers have already been hacked to allow all this evil recieving and transmitting, and the kernel guys predict that they may have to use signed register sets anyway, which would be good for Linux.
Instead of changing the registers that control frequency directly, you'd point the hardware at a block of memory with a signed register set, and the hardware would only load the registers after verifying the signature. You might still be able to bypass this with some serious hardware surgery, but it'd be enough to keep the Feds off the company's back.
This would be good for open source, because there would be no need to keep the interface secret, as you could only load signed register sets anyway.
That's very limited. It seems to be referring to the process of copying a program into memory to run it, including adaptions such as relocating or debugging it. You still can't link to my modules without my permission, because that's not an essential step in the use of my program. IANAL.
I personally don't think dynamic (not static) linking should be considered deriving, because there are too many grey areas. In my perfect dream-world, you could still control a library's distribution, just not how it's used by people who have a legal copy. This would validate non-GPL use of, for example readline, but it would also validate the GPL use of, for example, WMA codec dlls.
Taking scraped parts that weren't designed to be reused and building new vehicles out of them isn't a very safe idea either. Can you imagine Jim Lovell talking to the people who built the Apollo 13 SM? "Why the HELL couldn't you use a new O2 tank!"
Yes, you'd be weightless. Oddly enough, you wouldn't even be mildly attracted to the walls: inside a uniform spherical shell, the gravity always cancels out.
Actually, it'd be kinda funny if SCO or Amazon sued every other commercial software vendor. All your OSS development models, however, are belong to me! BWAHAHAHA
The non-criminal meaning was first in all the definitions you cited.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
The hypothesis is: If I write a program thusly, based on simple rules, with mutation and selection, then complex patterns will emerge. The first few thousand times you try the program, it doesn't work, so you tweak your hypothesis and test again. And it eventually worked.
Re:where can i see a fosil of a transitional speci
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
I can't disprove creationism, but you could disprove evolution. That's what makes it a testable hypothesis. If evolution can't explain something, it might be able to in a modified form, or with more data.
Creationism can explain everything. That makes it just as worthless as something that can explain nothing.
Re:forget the anti-evolution argument
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
they just search the solution space in a highly parallel manner, and they surprise people because they come up with solutions they did not consider.
[Evolution] just search[s] the solution space [of things that survive] in a highly parallel manner [throughout the universe], and [it] surprise[s] people because [it] comes up with solutions [Creationists] did not consider [and thus attribute to God.]
Yeah, it is very reasonable, and not too difficult to circumvent, and yeah, for now it's necessary to calm RIAA. But it's still DRM, which makes it inconvienent, (Can I use it on Linux? Can I transcode without putting it on a CD?) and perhaps legally questionable. (Is transcoding through a CD circumvention? Can you afford enough lawyers to prove it's not?)
But I do hope that it takes off in a big way. If it does, perhaps RIAA will realize that people don't want restrictions. Nobody's out to screw RIAA (well, they weren't always), and people will pay for legitimacy. If iTunes takes off, perhaps the next big thing will be even more open, and hence bigger, until eventually we can say goodbye to the whole DRM thing.
Why am I so against DRM? Because it's not about piracy. No pirate cares about DRM, and no matter what laws and technical measures are in place, pirated music will appear. It's impossible to stop that. In reality, DRM causes piracy, because it makes legit downloads less useful than illegal ones. So it must be about fair use.
That's the only quarrel I have with RIAA. If they drop DRM and leave fair use as it is, legal downloads will take off, and instead of screwing with our government to save their dying industry, they would actually give it a future. So I will consider iTunes, if only to demonstrate to RIAA that freedom sells.
The ambigous wording of that quote makes it more true than most things Bill says:
Microsoft's new security technology will wrest control of consumers' PCs and give it to media companies, but you shouldn't be worried. The media companies are your friends. You love the media companies... you love them... zzz
Does this mean you get the actual file, completely devoid of DRM of any kind, which you can do anything with subject to your moral limits? The website is somewhat unclear, they imply this, but then they talk about things like "burn unchanged playlists up to 10 times each."
If so, that's cool. I'd be happy to pay $1 for an Ogg file (or even AAC), and the success of things like this may show the industry that DRM is stupid: people won't infringe copyright if it is more convienent not to, and convience means open formats and no technological restrictions.
Slashdot Mirror
I know the DRM's practically not there, but that being the case, why isn't it just not there, period? Then it wouldn't even be an issue to get it to work on Linux, Windows, etc, you could just have the files. I realize it's there because the RIAA insists on it, but as everyone points out, it's a piece of cake to remove it. Surely the RIAA must know this. That slightly idealistic and slightly pratical barrier is all that keeps me away from iTunes.
When I can pay $1 for an Ogg file (or even MP3), I'll be happy to do so (even from Microsoft). It's simple, and it's amazing nobody gets it: cut the DRM crap, and people will pay for the convenience and legitimacy.
It's impossible to stop P2P, but P2P is very inconvenient, and people would rather not infringe copyrights. But DRM is much, much more inconvenient, and it shows the company's greed and mistrust of its customers. DRM does nothing to stop copyright infringement, and everything to curtail fair use. Fair use and convenience are one and the same, and and convenience sells.
iTunes is closest to this, but it still has DRM crap, won't work on Linux, etc. Whatever Microsoft does is bound to be a step backwards, because they are talking about expiration, the format will probably be WMA, you won't be able to switch services, your music will die when you unsubscribe, you won't be able to use it on anything but Windows and Microsoft-blessed hardware, etc.
Hopefully something even more open will come along, and do even better than iTunes, and things will become sane.
Sorry, but I have to ask: Does it run Linux?
Lawsuits as a warning to others, and establishing precedent for the GPL against a smallish company could be helpful, but it makes me feel like the RIAA.
Instead of changing the registers that control frequency directly, you'd point the hardware at a block of memory with a signed register set, and the hardware would only load the registers after verifying the signature. You might still be able to bypass this with some serious hardware surgery, but it'd be enough to keep the Feds off the company's back.
This would be good for open source, because there would be no need to keep the interface secret, as you could only load signed register sets anyway.
Well, I have televised evidence that we at least aren't pandas.
I personally don't think dynamic (not static) linking should be considered deriving, because there are too many grey areas. In my perfect dream-world, you could still control a library's distribution, just not how it's used by people who have a legal copy. This would validate non-GPL use of, for example readline, but it would also validate the GPL use of, for example, WMA codec dlls.
Under standard copyright law, you cannot derive from or create an aggregate work from my code without my permission. This means no linking, period.
I can't wait until 2.6 when the whole kernel uses the input device model and I can just make a script that listens to a device.
Taking scraped parts that weren't designed to be reused and building new vehicles out of them isn't a very safe idea either. Can you imagine Jim Lovell talking to the people who built the Apollo 13 SM? "Why the HELL couldn't you use a new O2 tank!"
It ain't broke, it just lacks duct tape!
Yes, you'd be weightless. Oddly enough, you wouldn't even be mildly attracted to the walls: inside a uniform spherical shell, the gravity always cancels out.
Actually, it'd be kinda funny if SCO or Amazon sued every other commercial software vendor. All your OSS development models, however, are belong to me! BWAHAHAHA
The non-criminal meaning was first in all the definitions you cited.
The hypothesis is: If I write a program thusly, based on simple rules, with mutation and selection, then complex patterns will emerge. The first few thousand times you try the program, it doesn't work, so you tweak your hypothesis and test again. And it eventually worked.
Creationism can explain everything. That makes it just as worthless as something that can explain nothing.
[Evolution] just search[s] the solution space [of things that survive] in a highly parallel manner [throughout the universe], and [it] surprise[s] people because [it] comes up with solutions [Creationists] did not consider [and thus attribute to God.]
But I do hope that it takes off in a big way. If it does, perhaps RIAA will realize that people don't want restrictions. Nobody's out to screw RIAA (well, they weren't always), and people will pay for legitimacy. If iTunes takes off, perhaps the next big thing will be even more open, and hence bigger, until eventually we can say goodbye to the whole DRM thing.
Why am I so against DRM? Because it's not about piracy. No pirate cares about DRM, and no matter what laws and technical measures are in place, pirated music will appear. It's impossible to stop that. In reality, DRM causes piracy, because it makes legit downloads less useful than illegal ones. So it must be about fair use.
That's the only quarrel I have with RIAA. If they drop DRM and leave fair use as it is, legal downloads will take off, and instead of screwing with our government to save their dying industry, they would actually give it a future. So I will consider iTunes, if only to demonstrate to RIAA that freedom sells.
Microsoft's new security technology will wrest control of consumers' PCs and give it to media companies, but you shouldn't be worried. The media companies are your friends. You love the media companies... you love them... zzz
If so, that's cool. I'd be happy to pay $1 for an Ogg file (or even AAC), and the success of things like this may show the industry that DRM is stupid: people won't infringe copyright if it is more convienent not to, and convience means open formats and no technological restrictions.
I'd wager that any OSS person whose name you've heard of agrees on the software patent issue.
Or perhaps his comments were the only ones you saw, because they get modded up. Because people agree with him.
Write a kernel input driver for a mouse which randomly moves and clicks at a very very high speed.
No offense, I just couldn't resist the quip against BASIC coders. (I was once was one.)
Actually, didn't older versions of Windows let you ignore GPFs, which usually didn't fix the problem but sometimes did?