Sure he's flamebait, but he's right. When I decided to rip all of my CDs and store them on my computer, I tried various formats. MP3, MP3pro, WMA, and yes OGG. In all honesty I could not hear the difference between any of them whether I played them via headphones or through my Sony STR-DE475.
Thus the choice was easy because only one factor remained: ubiquitousness.
Will it work with any portable player I buy, or will my hardware choices be limited?
Will I be able to share them with friends without having to explain how to play them?
Will it work with programs such as Nero without decoding the files to a different format first?
One format fit that criterion and it was MP3. Sure it's proprietary. But so is my car. I'm not going to stop using something that works merely because its proprietary. Computers are tools, not a religion!
The legal system would come grinding to a halt without lawyers. Everytime I deal with a case against a pro per person (someone representing himself) it grinds to a halt.
Because lawyers are not emotionally involved they almost always work to get the case settled. While the parties themselves usually only want blood, no matter trivial the matter is.
Once again, you're thinking about YOUR needs and not about the needs of others. Is your brain SO small that you can't even imagine a situation outside your own little world?!
You use your computer for runing Excel spreadsheats. That's fine. But the Opteron is designed to run servers. If you don't see a need for the Opteron, DON'T BUY IT! Those who do need it certainly will.
The problem is that the DMCA is bad law, very bad law. It certainly should be repealed.
Merely because the DMCA is bad law and allows for prison for mod sales is no reason to hold gun manufacturers liable for murders. One bad law should not begat another!
I'm not sure how the gun laws are relevant. Maybe I'm just too much into personal reasonability.
Surely if someone intentionally drove a GM car into someone and killed him, GM could never successfully be sued. The person who drove the car was the proximate, superceding, and intervening cause of the death.
If that is true, why should gun manufacturers be held liable for the same act?
I'm not some pro-gun nut. I've never owned a gun and never will, I just don't see the connection here.
You're missing the point. Under this ruling, what stops automobile manufacturers from placing chips in their parts. Soon only authorized dealers will be allowed to sell and install simply things such as air filters, and any third party who attempts to circumvent this will be jailed. And what incentive will automobile manufactures have to create quality products if repairing them becomes a huge cash cow?
Heck the exact same thing is currently happening with printer inks. Under the DMCA it's technically illegal to sell third party inks and Lexmark is suing manufacturers as such. Once again, it's the consumer getting screwed.
Open up your eyes and look beyond the facts of this case and realize you're about to lose important rights. But then again, you may be one of those sheep I mentioned earlier who simply doesn't care.
I think you're missing the point. With this ruling, what stops GM from making it illegal for you (or any third party) to change your car's oil filter or tires?
What stops Dell from making it illegal to install a new power supply and motherboard to your old Dell computer?
A long time ago I had a guitar amp which I modified by placing a capacitor in it which made it distort better. Should that be illegal too? Under this ruling, it could be.
It doesn't matter if we have a good reason to muck around with the stuff we buy, what matters is that we should have a right to do so.
I predict that within 10 years it'll be illegal to fix your own car. Heck, it'll be worse than that. Only those authorized by the manufacturer will be allowed to make the repair. The car repair business will become a cash cow for the automobile industry. Which of course will kill any incentive to make quality automobiles. And of course this will apply to more than that it will apply to every manufactured item we buy.
And on a related note, there was an incident about a year ago where someone tried to sell a Segway on Ebay. The company Segway got involved and demanded it be removed. It cited that the product contained intellectual property that could not be resold.
So not only will we be unable to repair the stuff we buy, we won't even really own it. In about ten years (or less) garage sales and classified ads will become the new Napster and will be outlawed. And like the ignorant sheep we Americans are, we'll wholeheartedly agree because we'll accept the mantra, if it's bad for business, it's bad for us.
"however do you really think Microsoft is stupid enough to think that there is a 100% gaurenteed way to stop piracy, personally, I don't."
Sure Product Activiation was not intended to stop 100% or piracy. But it also was not intended to stop 20% or even 1% of it. If there is even ONE break in the chain, the chain is useless. I'll agree, Microsoft knew this. And that utterly proves my point: Microsoft never intended Product Activation to stop real piracy. It was solely intended to stop sharing. Thanks for the help!
"How is sharing with friends and family not piracy?"
Because there is no monetary incentive in letting someone copy something. If merely sharing a copy of an OS or a music CD is piracy, the term "piracy" loses it's meaning. Piracy originally refered to being attacked at sea, having all of your possessions stolen, and being left for dead. Now it means making a copy of a CD. How is that analogous?! Is stealing someone parking space piracy?! Is cutting in line, i.e., taking someone's turn, piracy?! Is stealing someone's boyfriend piracy?! What does the term "piracy" mean if so many acts means piracy?!
And using piracy in a sharing context is ambiguous. When Microsoft and the press say that Product Activation is necessary to stop piracy, the meaning of that statement changes when you learn that it will never stop real piracy, i.e., people copying and selling the software.
Why can't Microsoft be honest? Tell the world the sole purpose of Product Activation is to stop people from loaning out their copies. Why mangle the English language to avoid saying the truth?!
Heck, I would have voted for Henry Rollins to play Neo. Who better to play a post-apocalyptic hacking superhero?! He's tattooed, buff, and a major nerd!
Microsoft keeps arguing that the purpose of Product Activation is to stop piracy. That's ludicrous:
First, weeks before XP was released there was the infamous leaked corporate copy of XP readily available for download in convenient ISO format.
Second, Microsoft stated that anyone using the leaked version of XP would not be able to update to SP1. However, a week before SP1 was released tweaktown.com had figured out and posted a way around it.
Third, now the exact same thing is happening to Windows Server 2003.
Exactly how did Product Activation stop piracy? It didn't. What does it stop? It stops what I call sharing. That's when a friend uses his copy of Windows to upgrade a friend's computer. That is what Product Activation has stopped and nothing more. (I'm not saying that sharing is OK, but it's hardly piracy!)
Maybe Product Activation is also Microsoft's attempt to get the average person used to paying for upgrades. Maybe it is a step in the direction of Palladium, i.e., getting the average person used to the idea that Microsoft controls their PC, and not the other way around. It could be a lot of things, but it is clearly NOT intended to stop real piracy.
I personally change my motherboard/CPU/video card about once a year. But I'm also swapping things out at least twice a month, e.g., I'll switch sound cards. And I'm buying new hardware about once a month. Just a few days ago I bought a new HD. The month before that I doubled my RAM to 1 gig. The month before that I bought a USB 2.0/FireWire combo PCI card. Etc, etc, etc.
And I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you change your hardware every day or every minute or never. It's YOUR computer. I'm not willing to ask permission to make change. And I'm also not willing to buy a product that expects me to ask permission, even if I never actually have to ask.
It's my computer damnit, and no one will tell me what I can do with it!!! (Other than my wife of course!)
Microsoft attempted to do that with the leaked copy of XP. But about a week before SP1's release, tweaktown.com had a way around it. It's damn nice that Austrialia doesn't have a version of DMCA... yet.
Actually the only money Microsoft makes is on both Office and Windows. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's about 85% profit on Office and 80% on Windows.
All of that excess is used to fund money losing projects including WebTV, WinCE, Xbox, MSN, and everything else.
"Enough room for even the heaviest geek to make all the changes he wants."
I've read in other forums from hardware geeks who were told by Microsoft that they had to purchase new copies, as they were allegedly changing their hardware too much. They claimed that you could significantly change your hardware three times and still validate by the web. After that you have to start calling, and if you call too much (and there appears to be no precise number) you're eventually out of luck.
I doubt very much these individuals were lying, as they weren't pushing any agenda other than telling their stories.
As someone who's always changing his computer's hardware, I think I'll skip the whole product activation fiasco. I have no desire to ask permission to use my computer! I'll stick with W2K until I'm able to do everything I need on Linux. (And the only thing holding me back is an audio editor is good as Cool Edit Pro!)
Re:Why is legacy a bad thing?
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
I said it took the Beatles "years" to do their best work. The Beatles first released "Please Please Me" in 1983. The White Album (my favorite) was released in 1968. That's five YEARS later. Is there something you don't understand about the word "years"?!
Re:Why is legacy a bad thing?
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
So it is necessarily true that if something is legacy, it has been replaced by something better. Then answer this question:
Why is a USB modem better than my serial port modem? Is the USB version faster? Nope, actually it's a little slower because the USB connection wastes CPU cycles. And my modem needs no drivers to install. But yet my modem is legacy while the USB modem is not?
Heck, and even if something is better, that does not mean it's always cost effect to change to a new paradigm. Before something new is adopted, it has to be sufficiently better to justify the cost of adopting it.
Could it be that in some situations, manufacturers call peripherals legacy, even though they work perfectly well, for the sole purpose of getting you to buy new stuff?!
I certainly agree about the portability in the car. I use a USB 2.0 IDE enclosure with an 80 gig drive in it. I transferred a bunch of my son's TV shows (Elmo, Wiggles, etc) onto it (plus my entire CD collection) to take on the road with us. It's great. I plug it into the laptop and he's quiet for the entire trip.
Still, I've not had any network related problems, and I'd much rather work from my system and do all of my burning from there, rather than jumping from computer to computer. Still, if it works for you, I won't complain.
Re:Why is legacy a bad thing?
on
Legacy-Free PCs
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for proving my point. Sometimes new is better, sometimes it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
GIF for quality?!
Sure he's flamebait, but he's right. When I decided to rip all of my CDs and store them on my computer, I tried various formats. MP3, MP3pro, WMA, and yes OGG. In all honesty I could not hear the difference between any of them whether I played them via headphones or through my Sony STR-DE475.
Thus the choice was easy because only one factor remained: ubiquitousness.
Will it work with any portable player I buy, or will my hardware choices be limited?
Will I be able to share them with friends without having to explain how to play them?
Will it work with programs such as Nero without decoding the files to a different format first?
One format fit that criterion and it was MP3. Sure it's proprietary. But so is my car. I'm not going to stop using something that works merely because its proprietary. Computers are tools, not a religion!
Torrent?!
torrent [ táwr(schwa)nt ] (plural torrents)noun
1. rush of liquid: a fast and powerful rush of liquid, especially water
2. tumultuous outpouring: a violent or tumultuous flow
The legal system would come grinding to a halt without lawyers. Everytime I deal with a case against a pro per person (someone representing himself) it grinds to a halt.
Because lawyers are not emotionally involved they almost always work to get the case settled. While the parties themselves usually only want blood, no matter trivial the matter is.
Once again, you're thinking about YOUR needs and not about the needs of others. Is your brain SO small that you can't even imagine a situation outside your own little world?!
You use your computer for runing Excel spreadsheats. That's fine. But the Opteron is designed to run servers. If you don't see a need for the Opteron, DON'T BUY IT! Those who do need it certainly will.
"The average person business user..."
If you had a brain, you'd look outside your narrow little view of the world and realize that the Opteron is NOT designed for the "average person"!!!
The average person will never need a semi-truck. Should we stop making semi-trucks?!
The average person will never need a satellite. Should we stop making satellites?
The average person will never need a submarine. Should we stop making submarines?!
Please do us a favor and THINK before you post!
P.S. One more thing, what the heck is a "fasical waste of resource"?!
The problem is that the DMCA is bad law, very bad law. It certainly should be repealed.
Merely because the DMCA is bad law and allows for prison for mod sales is no reason to hold gun manufacturers liable for murders. One bad law should not begat another!
I'm not sure how the gun laws are relevant. Maybe I'm just too much into personal reasonability.
Surely if someone intentionally drove a GM car into someone and killed him, GM could never successfully be sued. The person who drove the car was the proximate, superceding, and intervening cause of the death.
If that is true, why should gun manufacturers be held liable for the same act?
I'm not some pro-gun nut. I've never owned a gun and never will, I just don't see the connection here.
Well, I'm glad that you're against the DMCA, but I'm bothered by this quote:
"The thing is, until the law is repealed or something, our views on it are irrelevant."
Our views ARE important and are NOT irrelevant. And most importantly the DMCA will never be repealed if we stop expressing our views.
You're missing the point. Under this ruling, what stops automobile manufacturers from placing chips in their parts. Soon only authorized dealers will be allowed to sell and install simply things such as air filters, and any third party who attempts to circumvent this will be jailed. And what incentive will automobile manufactures have to create quality products if repairing them becomes a huge cash cow?
Heck the exact same thing is currently happening with printer inks. Under the DMCA it's technically illegal to sell third party inks and Lexmark is suing manufacturers as such. Once again, it's the consumer getting screwed.
Open up your eyes and look beyond the facts of this case and realize you're about to lose important rights. But then again, you may be one of those sheep I mentioned earlier who simply doesn't care.
I think you're missing the point. With this ruling, what stops GM from making it illegal for you (or any third party) to change your car's oil filter or tires?
What stops Dell from making it illegal to install a new power supply and motherboard to your old Dell computer?
A long time ago I had a guitar amp which I modified by placing a capacitor in it which made it distort better. Should that be illegal too? Under this ruling, it could be.
It doesn't matter if we have a good reason to muck around with the stuff we buy, what matters is that we should have a right to do so.
I predict that within 10 years it'll be illegal to fix your own car. Heck, it'll be worse than that. Only those authorized by the manufacturer will be allowed to make the repair. The car repair business will become a cash cow for the automobile industry. Which of course will kill any incentive to make quality automobiles. And of course this will apply to more than that it will apply to every manufactured item we buy.
And on a related note, there was an incident about a year ago where someone tried to sell a Segway on Ebay. The company Segway got involved and demanded it be removed. It cited that the product contained intellectual property that could not be resold.
So not only will we be unable to repair the stuff we buy, we won't even really own it. In about ten years (or less) garage sales and classified ads will become the new Napster and will be outlawed. And like the ignorant sheep we Americans are, we'll wholeheartedly agree because we'll accept the mantra, if it's bad for business, it's bad for us.
"however do you really think Microsoft is stupid enough to think that there is a 100% gaurenteed way to stop piracy, personally, I don't."
Sure Product Activiation was not intended to stop 100% or piracy. But it also was not intended to stop 20% or even 1% of it. If there is even ONE break in the chain, the chain is useless. I'll agree, Microsoft knew this. And that utterly proves my point: Microsoft never intended Product Activation to stop real piracy. It was solely intended to stop sharing. Thanks for the help!
"How is sharing with friends and family not piracy?"
Because there is no monetary incentive in letting someone copy something. If merely sharing a copy of an OS or a music CD is piracy, the term "piracy" loses it's meaning. Piracy originally refered to being attacked at sea, having all of your possessions stolen, and being left for dead. Now it means making a copy of a CD. How is that analogous?! Is stealing someone parking space piracy?! Is cutting in line, i.e., taking someone's turn, piracy?! Is stealing someone's boyfriend piracy?! What does the term "piracy" mean if so many acts means piracy?!
And using piracy in a sharing context is ambiguous. When Microsoft and the press say that Product Activation is necessary to stop piracy, the meaning of that statement changes when you learn that it will never stop real piracy, i.e., people copying and selling the software.
Why can't Microsoft be honest? Tell the world the sole purpose of Product Activation is to stop people from loaning out their copies. Why mangle the English language to avoid saying the truth?!
Heck, I would have voted for Henry Rollins to play Neo. Who better to play a post-apocalyptic hacking superhero?! He's tattooed, buff, and a major nerd!
In three years VIA will not be able to sell pin capatible boards for Intel CPUs.
Microsoft keeps arguing that the purpose of Product Activation is to stop piracy. That's ludicrous:
First, weeks before XP was released there was the infamous leaked corporate copy of XP readily available for download in convenient ISO format.
Second, Microsoft stated that anyone using the leaked version of XP would not be able to update to SP1. However, a week before SP1 was released tweaktown.com had figured out and posted a way around it.
Third, now the exact same thing is happening to Windows Server 2003.
Exactly how did Product Activation stop piracy? It didn't. What does it stop? It stops what I call sharing. That's when a friend uses his copy of Windows to upgrade a friend's computer. That is what Product Activation has stopped and nothing more. (I'm not saying that sharing is OK, but it's hardly piracy!)
Maybe Product Activation is also Microsoft's attempt to get the average person used to paying for upgrades. Maybe it is a step in the direction of Palladium, i.e., getting the average person used to the idea that Microsoft controls their PC, and not the other way around. It could be a lot of things, but it is clearly NOT intended to stop real piracy.
I'm just stating what I read.
I personally change my motherboard/CPU/video card about once a year. But I'm also swapping things out at least twice a month, e.g., I'll switch sound cards. And I'm buying new hardware about once a month. Just a few days ago I bought a new HD. The month before that I doubled my RAM to 1 gig. The month before that I bought a USB 2.0/FireWire combo PCI card. Etc, etc, etc.
And I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you change your hardware every day or every minute or never. It's YOUR computer. I'm not willing to ask permission to make change. And I'm also not willing to buy a product that expects me to ask permission, even if I never actually have to ask.
It's my computer damnit, and no one will tell me what I can do with it!!! (Other than my wife of course!)
Microsoft attempted to do that with the leaked copy of XP. But about a week before SP1's release, tweaktown.com had a way around it. It's damn nice that Austrialia doesn't have a version of DMCA... yet.
Actually the only money Microsoft makes is on both Office and Windows. I can't remember the exact figures, but it's about 85% profit on Office and 80% on Windows.
All of that excess is used to fund money losing projects including WebTV, WinCE, Xbox, MSN, and everything else.
"Enough room for even the heaviest geek to make all the changes he wants."
I've read in other forums from hardware geeks who were told by Microsoft that they had to purchase new copies, as they were allegedly changing their hardware too much. They claimed that you could significantly change your hardware three times and still validate by the web. After that you have to start calling, and if you call too much (and there appears to be no precise number) you're eventually out of luck.
I doubt very much these individuals were lying, as they weren't pushing any agenda other than telling their stories.
As someone who's always changing his computer's hardware, I think I'll skip the whole product activation fiasco. I have no desire to ask permission to use my computer! I'll stick with W2K until I'm able to do everything I need on Linux. (And the only thing holding me back is an audio editor is good as Cool Edit Pro!)
I said it took the Beatles "years" to do their best work. The Beatles first released "Please Please Me" in 1983. The White Album (my favorite) was released in 1968. That's five YEARS later. Is there something you don't understand about the word "years"?!
So it is necessarily true that if something is legacy, it has been replaced by something better. Then answer this question:
Why is a USB modem better than my serial port modem? Is the USB version faster? Nope, actually it's a little slower because the USB connection wastes CPU cycles. And my modem needs no drivers to install. But yet my modem is legacy while the USB modem is not?
Heck, and even if something is better, that does not mean it's always cost effect to change to a new paradigm. Before something new is adopted, it has to be sufficiently better to justify the cost of adopting it.
Could it be that in some situations, manufacturers call peripherals legacy, even though they work perfectly well, for the sole purpose of getting you to buy new stuff?!
I certainly agree about the portability in the car. I use a USB 2.0 IDE enclosure with an 80 gig drive in it. I transferred a bunch of my son's TV shows (Elmo, Wiggles, etc) onto it (plus my entire CD collection) to take on the road with us. It's great. I plug it into the laptop and he's quiet for the entire trip.
Still, I've not had any network related problems, and I'd much rather work from my system and do all of my burning from there, rather than jumping from computer to computer. Still, if it works for you, I won't complain.
Thanks for proving my point. Sometimes new is better, sometimes it's not.