You've brought up a good point, actually. No, that's not how I feel about Gaim because Gaim works correctly, has a good interface, and IMO is way better than any of the instant messengers whose protocols it supports. What's the difference? Simply put, the iTunes browser reeks of being nothing but a quick hack created for the sole purpose of spite. You can't buy music through it, and even if you could you couldn't play any of it on Linux without stripping away the protection. It just seems like a completely and totally useless project.
It's just more of the same bullshit from the dumbasses that think anything that costs money can't be good. So let's go and reverse engineer this network, dumping hours of time into building something that doesn't support half the features of the REAL software, runs at half the speed, has an ugly fucking interface, and is basically only a half-assed job all around. But it's Free, so it's good, right? Right?
Re:Ahead of the trend.
on
Extreme Yo-Yoing
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
So, you couldn't wrap your pea-sized (and most likely hindquarter located) brain around the rather OBVIOUS fact that whatever stats he's quoting allowed for multiple choice (i.e. "What search engines do you use? Select all that apply.").
And why is it a copyright violation? Because you are not abiding by the author's terms. Copyright law makes no restrictions on distribution, the GPL does.
You were doing good until you got to the time/space part. A galaxy that's 12 billion light years away exists NOW, but the LIGHT IT EMITTED 12 billion years ago only exists HERE now. The sun still exists now, but it takes four minutes for that particular now to reach, at which point it is representative of a THEN and not a NOW, yet it was NOW four minutes ago. I think I'm gonna fall over...
But that's what I want to do with the kernel! I want to change it and sell it as my own. Why can't I do that? Oh yeah, IT'S A LICENSE VIOLATION. A license is a license is a license.
a) That covers about 100% of all computers that iTunes runs on. Wow, what a coincidence. It also covers about 99.9% of all people that would ever use iTunes in the first place.
b) Tough shit. See above. It's not supposed to. Take it up with the Wine people, or use Windows/OSX.
c) I've heard of about three different CD's that people had problems with, all of which were later released in a non-protected version.
It doesn't matter why Apple's service is best. You can't use it, get the fuck over it. Find an alternative. You're doing NOTHING but making excuses. Buy the fucking CD or shut the fuck up.
You don't have any rights to choose where and how purchased media is played, if you bought it through iTunes. When you do so, you are bound by their agreement. You made the decision that buying only the exact songs you want is favorable to playing CD's on anything you want. If you don't like it, don't use iTunes.
Wow, this discussion gets more unbefuckinglieveably moronic the farther down I read. Please, tell me, exactly how are your fair use rights being violated? Fair use makes no provisions for how many computers or CD players you can use something on. It makes no provisions for you even being able to use something. Fair use is intended to allow excerpts from books to be used in reviews, for bits from songs to be used in teaching, and things of that nature. It's not so a bunch of goddamned geek-ass bastards can sit around and jack off over how many GB's of mp3's they've DL'd this month.
3. The heart of the issue. Legally Apple is 100% right here but ethically I believe they are lacking, just because it is law does not make it ethical (Jim Crow laws for example).
First of all, thank you for not being a moron. The amount of people that bring this up as a 'moral' issue pisses me off. Morals and ethics are completely different things, although they may appear the same to some degree.
Now I get to tell you you're dead wrong.;-) Apple is being COMPLTELY ethical. They have a deal to uphold with major music distributors. They seriously don't give a shit about a bunch of geeks running around proclaiming 'civil disobediance' by not paying for a $1 song. Their main goal is to KEEP THE DEALS WITH THE RECORD COMPANIES. While what they're doing may not be in the best interest of J. Random Hacker, it IS in the best interest of EVERYONE ELSE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. People like me don't care about DRM. If it leads to lower prices ($1 per song? Sold.), I DON'T CARE. Apple is running in the right direction, and everyone should be encouraging them. Paranoid tinfoil lovers aside, if DRM ever gets to the point that people don't like it... THEY'LL STOP BUYING IT. The general public will only put up with so much bullshit, and people are not as stupid as slashdotters seem to think.
It's the EXACT same thing and arguing otherwise is simply being a pedantic tit. Licenses are licenses. You use GPL code, you are bound by the license. You use iTunes, you are bound by the license.
It would be the 'Same deal as GPL violators' if someone set up their own webshop, copied and sold iTMS content.
Oh, so as long as I'm just doing large-scale copying for FREE, then it's okay? Bullshit. An IP violation is an IP violation, whether it's making copies of DVD's and distributing them via P2P, duplicating them and selling them through eBay, or putting GPL code into a router without distributing the source. It's EXACT SAME THING. Get the fuck over it.
This is a bullshit argument as well. Theft of services is still theft, yet nobody misses any PHYSICAL goods. "It's not theft, it's just an IP violation." is the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever fucking read. It's still illegal. Get the fuck over it.
And I'm pretty sure that most people would consider sitting on your ass during all your free time to add skinning capabilities to a calendar that maybe three people use a total waste of time.
Completely, totally, absolutely, unbelieveably WRONG. It is not designed to 'fly in the face' of copyright. It works hand-in-hand with copyright law to enable enforcement. Without copyright law, there is no GPL.
No, it is not a technicality. Without copyright laws, there is no GPL. Period, end of story. You oppose copyright, you oppose the entire basis of the GPL.
The black box in the car doesn't provide any more information than a standard police investigation would. Is the police investigation an invasion of privacy too? The black boxes are supportive evidence, nothing more.
That's the way I read it too. People pretend like the GPL doesn't have an agenda. It does, and a rather loud one at that. It's one of those 'forest for the trees' situations.
RACE TRACK
Most every place has a drag strip of some kind. A lucky few even live near road courses (the bastards). Plus, there's always west Texas. Nobody cares how fast you go between Abilene and El Paso because there isn't anyone to care.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
You've brought up a good point, actually. No, that's not how I feel about Gaim because Gaim works correctly, has a good interface, and IMO is way better than any of the instant messengers whose protocols it supports. What's the difference? Simply put, the iTunes browser reeks of being nothing but a quick hack created for the sole purpose of spite. You can't buy music through it, and even if you could you couldn't play any of it on Linux without stripping away the protection. It just seems like a completely and totally useless project.
A new driver's license will go a long way towards helping that. You could easily get a NY state license, AFAIK.
It's just more of the same bullshit from the dumbasses that think anything that costs money can't be good. So let's go and reverse engineer this network, dumping hours of time into building something that doesn't support half the features of the REAL software, runs at half the speed, has an ugly fucking interface, and is basically only a half-assed job all around. But it's Free, so it's good, right? Right?
I'm sure he knew exactly what he was saying. ;-)
It's just another thing for the people here to bitch about. Nothing more.
So, you couldn't wrap your pea-sized (and most likely hindquarter located) brain around the rather OBVIOUS fact that whatever stats he's quoting allowed for multiple choice (i.e. "What search engines do you use? Select all that apply.").
And why is it a copyright violation? Because you are not abiding by the author's terms. Copyright law makes no restrictions on distribution, the GPL does.
You were doing good until you got to the time/space part. A galaxy that's 12 billion light years away exists NOW, but the LIGHT IT EMITTED 12 billion years ago only exists HERE now. The sun still exists now, but it takes four minutes for that particular now to reach, at which point it is representative of a THEN and not a NOW, yet it was NOW four minutes ago. I think I'm gonna fall over...
A wormhole OTOH, could be powered by a massive nearby fusion source...
;-)
I swear, I read that as a 'massive nerdy fusion source'.
But that's what I want to do with the kernel! I want to change it and sell it as my own. Why can't I do that? Oh yeah, IT'S A LICENSE VIOLATION. A license is a license is a license.
Let's see...
a) That covers about 100% of all computers that iTunes runs on. Wow, what a coincidence. It also covers about 99.9% of all people that would ever use iTunes in the first place.
b) Tough shit. See above. It's not supposed to. Take it up with the Wine people, or use Windows/OSX.
c) I've heard of about three different CD's that people had problems with, all of which were later released in a non-protected version.
It doesn't matter why Apple's service is best. You can't use it, get the fuck over it. Find an alternative. You're doing NOTHING but making excuses. Buy the fucking CD or shut the fuck up.
You don't have any rights to choose where and how purchased media is played, if you bought it through iTunes. When you do so, you are bound by their agreement. You made the decision that buying only the exact songs you want is favorable to playing CD's on anything you want. If you don't like it, don't use iTunes.
Tell me, even without DRM would you use iTunes?
Wow, this discussion gets more unbefuckinglieveably moronic the farther down I read. Please, tell me, exactly how are your fair use rights being violated? Fair use makes no provisions for how many computers or CD players you can use something on. It makes no provisions for you even being able to use something. Fair use is intended to allow excerpts from books to be used in reviews, for bits from songs to be used in teaching, and things of that nature. It's not so a bunch of goddamned geek-ass bastards can sit around and jack off over how many GB's of mp3's they've DL'd this month.
Now I get to tell you you're dead wrong.
It's the EXACT same thing and arguing otherwise is simply being a pedantic tit. Licenses are licenses. You use GPL code, you are bound by the license. You use iTunes, you are bound by the license.
It would be the 'Same deal as GPL violators' if someone set up their own webshop, copied and sold iTMS content.
Oh, so as long as I'm just doing large-scale copying for FREE, then it's okay? Bullshit. An IP violation is an IP violation, whether it's making copies of DVD's and distributing them via P2P, duplicating them and selling them through eBay, or putting GPL code into a router without distributing the source. It's EXACT SAME THING. Get the fuck over it.
This is a bullshit argument as well. Theft of services is still theft, yet nobody misses any PHYSICAL goods. "It's not theft, it's just an IP violation." is the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever fucking read. It's still illegal. Get the fuck over it.
And I'm pretty sure that most people would consider sitting on your ass during all your free time to add skinning capabilities to a calendar that maybe three people use a total waste of time.
Nice to see you've completely and totally missed the point. I'm going to venture a guess that the Obfuscated C Contest pisses you off too, doesn't it?
Completely, totally, absolutely, unbelieveably WRONG. It is not designed to 'fly in the face' of copyright. It works hand-in-hand with copyright law to enable enforcement. Without copyright law, there is no GPL.
No, it is not a technicality. Without copyright laws, there is no GPL. Period, end of story. You oppose copyright, you oppose the entire basis of the GPL.
The black box in the car doesn't provide any more information than a standard police investigation would. Is the police investigation an invasion of privacy too? The black boxes are supportive evidence, nothing more.
That's the way I read it too. People pretend like the GPL doesn't have an agenda. It does, and a rather loud one at that. It's one of those 'forest for the trees' situations.
RACE TRACK ;-)
Most every place has a drag strip of some kind. A lucky few even live near road courses (the bastards). Plus, there's always west Texas. Nobody cares how fast you go between Abilene and El Paso because there isn't anyone to care.
I don't. Don't speed. End of story.
And you can *CHOOSE* not to use it.