I burn CDs all the time from protected content, and of course your friend will have to authorize to play the music. It's as simple as entering your iTunes account password.
That way they can pretend they're "on track" to ship by the end of the year when they're really not, or else it would see a public release. The dual-release schedule of Vista is corporate denial on a grand scale.
I can set up a house-wide streaming media server with the click of an app icon. I just start iTunes, and any other instances of iTunes on the network see my music. I have a G4 Mac mini sitting in my entertainment center just serving everybody's music flawlessly.
Let me know when your gzipped WAV archives can do that so easily.
DRM-locked music is inherently inferior to free music.
Not if the DRM is so liberal that you never notice it.
When someone bitches about iTunes DRM, I always know that they've ABSOLUTELY NEVER bought any iTunes music. If they had, they'd realize you never even notice that the DRM is there.
Just more rhetoric that has no application in the real world. Phrases like "DRM-corrupted," "DRM-fouled," and "DRM-damaged." Next time, twitter, have the balls to log in as yourself.
Just so everyone knows, twitter is a well-known shill who bashes absolutely everything that's not Linux-based or OSS.
I save my wavs as gziped tar archives and play them as oggs.
Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. And nobody cares about Ogg but Slashdotters!
iTunes does not live up to the Amarok + Wikipedia + Lyrics experience
iTunes with all the free plug-ins out there not only live up to it but surpass it. Frankly, the app is the #1 jukebox application for a reason. It's a great piece of software with an interface everyone now clones.
All of that can be done with plug-ins (my iTunes automatically grabs lyrics for every song, which appear on my iPod on the next sync), and iTunes doesn't phone home unless you specifically tell it to. Skinning is a disaster for any app, and every Winamp theme I've ever seen has been a retina-burning, psychedelic experience that left me with the need for diapers.
This isn't a "non-story." Compliance with web standards is an important feature for a modern web browser. The headline is also not misleading, as Wilson states they're between 50% and 90% compliant with CSS 2.1.
If Windows updates were rolling out as rapidly as OS X at its price, ISVs would more quickly require newer versions. That said, 10.2 came out in 2002. That's four years ago, which sounds like a reasonable length of time to abandon support.
Heck, Halo 2 for PCs will require Vista for absolutely no reason other than to force upgrades.
Nobody forced me to buy any OS X upgrades, and since I got on the bandwagon with Panther a few months before Tiger came out, I've only paid $120.
OS X also has "free patching." Big difference between that and a major version upgrade. Frankly, I don't mind the idea of paying money for new features almost every year in my operating system, rather than letting it stagnate for six years with little more than some SP2 security changes and a "Media Center Edition" spin-off. I mean, re-read your sentence:
So that's 650 dollars to keep your OS up to date compared to just 250 for XP.
Paying $250 for XP isn't exactly keeping your OS up to date, sir. Tiger = a year old. XP = going on six.
You know, I was going to thank you for batting it around with me (I enjoy a little debate now and then), but if you're going to be an asshole just because I disagree with you, never mind.
Please point out where I said artists' creations should not be protected by copyright. Go ahead. I'm waiting for a quote.
You implied it when you said the law was wrong. Maybe you forgot what you read, so here it is: "The problem is with the law, and with those who sponsored it, wrote it, and voted for it." You are arguing against copyright law, which means you don't believe artists should be protected by copyright law. Now do you understand what you wrote?
Copyright is granted for a limited time for a reason - copyright is a social contract designed to maximize the creative person's benefit to society.
And once again, I have to point out that this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with pirating artists' music today and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
Contrast that with the current view of copyright that is essentially a draconian assignment of quasi-(and effectively)-permanent ownership.
I know you think using words like "draconian" somehow bolsters your position, but all it does is prove my point that you're just using emotional arguments to distract from the fact piracy is nothing more than freeloading off of other hard-working human beings.
Those who have espoused that view have broken their part of the social contract - they've stopped recognizing that creation and art are to benefit the culture, not to make people rich.
Creation and art are whatever people want them to be. Artists make their careers out of selling their art. Who are you to tell them they're not allowed to make money from their work? More lame anti-capitalist garbage from dorm-room hipsters.
They are not protecting their rights.
They absolutely, 100% are. It's called copyright law. Artists have the right not to have their material taken without compensation.
They're trying to redefine them by depriving society of its right to the work by making it so that nobody can ever create derivative works from them - and that is the equivalent of cultural rape.
Hahahaha! "Cultural rape." More melodramatic, hyperbolic crap deriving from passionate emotions rather than logic and truth.
Society doesn't have a "right" to an artist's material without having to pay for it. In fact, society doesn't have a right to any artists' materials at all. Please cite the laws that state such.
All of this is, as I stated before, more irrelevant nonsense designed to distract from the fact that pirating music is wrong. Scapegoat the RIAA so that people forget what they're doing. "The RIAA made me do it! They're cultural rapists!!"
As I said, I was not attempting to justify piracy - I am merely attempting to point out that piracy is a response to the current system in which copyrights are no longer about benefiting the culture. Whether it is right or wrong is, in this thread, not my focus.
Copyrights have always been about protecting the rights of copyright owners. It isn't to "benefit the culture."
What about when the copyright expires? It becomes public domain - free. Is it wrong then? How long is long enough? Does it seem appropriate to you for the inheritors of a copyright to benefit from the monopoly copyright on it in perpetuity? It is exactly that which the founders did NOT want to happen - and why copyrights are to be for a limited time.
None of this has ANYTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH PIRATING AN ARTIST'S MUSIC TODAY. Now, I know you'll respo
After all, random Slashdot comments are such an incredible source of accurate information, especially for gathering usage stats when testing your flagship software.
It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact you think the RIAA are bad guys doesn't give justification for piracy.
Even more than that, the RIAA/MPAA really are not the 'bad guys' in this situation - they are acting as the law allows them to. The problem is with the law, and with those who sponsored it, wrote it, and voted for it.
You think there's a problem with artists' music being protected by copyright? What you're essentially saying here is that an artist doesn't have the right to not have his music pirated.
The problem is, the RIAA/MPAA and those who supported such copyright legislation are the ones who have broken their part of the social contract - the public is still attempting to exercise THEIR part of that contract by pirating.
The public has no right to pirate anything. You also haven't explained how they've broken any "social contract" or how it justifies ensuring that Type O Negative or Foo Fighters don't get paid today.
I am not attempting to make an argument for piracy - I am attempting to point out that the issue is far more complicated than "Stealing isn't right even if the owner is evil."
No, what you're attempting to do is cloud the issue to distract from the fact that stealing isn't right even if the owner is evil. You haven't even explained what makes them "evil" when all they're doing is protecting their rights. It's a tired Slashdot strategy. This is very simple--taking an artist's music without paying them for it is wrong, just as "evil" as you claim the RIAA is. You scapegoat these lobby groups as a way of justifying piracy of artists' music, making sure to never mention the artists in the equation--it's always the RIAA, RIAA, RIAA.
What are you talking about? Jobs probably leaked it himself.
Just a question. Do you have any scrap of proof at all that this is true beyond your own personal hope that it is? Apple is already getting OS X Leopard feedback from the Mac developers registered with Apple Developer Connection who have legal copies of OS X Leopard Developer Preview.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but none of it changes the fact that music piracy itself is essentially freeloading off another human being's work. It's not due to any obsolete business model or bad copyright system. It's simply people getting something they know they won't have to pay for if they get on a P2P network.
Perhaps copyright law needs to be changed, but that won't happen as long as the RIAA/MPAA maintains tight control over congress with their lobbyists. So yes, the RIAA/MPAA is the bad guy and piracy is not the "broken" part of the current state of IP.
This has nothing to do with people freeloading music, and the RIAA/MPAA being the "bad guy" in that situation is still not ample justification for not paying Tool today.
Slashdot Mirror
I burn CDs all the time from protected content, and of course your friend will have to authorize to play the music. It's as simple as entering your iTunes account password.
That way they can pretend they're "on track" to ship by the end of the year when they're really not, or else it would see a public release. The dual-release schedule of Vista is corporate denial on a grand scale.
I can set up a house-wide streaming media server with the click of an app icon. I just start iTunes, and any other instances of iTunes on the network see my music. I have a G4 Mac mini sitting in my entertainment center just serving everybody's music flawlessly.
Let me know when your gzipped WAV archives can do that so easily.
Not if the DRM is so liberal that you never notice it.
When someone bitches about iTunes DRM, I always know that they've ABSOLUTELY NEVER bought any iTunes music. If they had, they'd realize you never even notice that the DRM is there.
Just more rhetoric that has no application in the real world. Phrases like "DRM-corrupted," "DRM-fouled," and "DRM-damaged." Next time, twitter, have the balls to log in as yourself.
...one of those guys who bashes iTunes without having used it beyond a cursory glance.
Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious. And nobody cares about Ogg but Slashdotters!
iTunes with all the free plug-ins out there not only live up to it but surpass it. Frankly, the app is the #1 jukebox application for a reason. It's a great piece of software with an interface everyone now clones.
You sound like one of those guys who bashes
MP3s are a proprietary DRM format? I must've missed the meeting where that meme was handed out.
All of that can be done with plug-ins (my iTunes automatically grabs lyrics for every song, which appear on my iPod on the next sync), and iTunes doesn't phone home unless you specifically tell it to. Skinning is a disaster for any app, and every Winamp theme I've ever seen has been a retina-burning, psychedelic experience that left me with the need for diapers.
And nobody cares about Ogg.
Defective-by-design? That 75% market share says otherwise. But hey, enjoy your "Archos Gmini."
He credits Unix with being the first operating system that did paging.
No, he doesn't. He simply explained that the first version used paging to deal with memory management on the lowly system it started on.
This isn't a "non-story." Compliance with web standards is an important feature for a modern web browser. The headline is also not misleading, as Wilson states they're between 50% and 90% compliant with CSS 2.1.
Because Wikipedia hasn't affected my life beyond giving me an easy way to look up Ninja Turtles trivia or find out about Sims 2 expansion packs.
If Windows updates were rolling out as rapidly as OS X at its price, ISVs would more quickly require newer versions. That said, 10.2 came out in 2002. That's four years ago, which sounds like a reasonable length of time to abandon support.
Heck, Halo 2 for PCs will require Vista for absolutely no reason other than to force upgrades.
It actually pissed you off when you read it? Are you one of those hardcore Stallman followers?
The article was fantastic, and the description of Stallman was accurate (it says he thought software was an intellectual asset and should be free).
OS X also has "free patching." Big difference between that and a major version upgrade. Frankly, I don't mind the idea of paying money for new features almost every year in my operating system, rather than letting it stagnate for six years with little more than some SP2 security changes and a "Media Center Edition" spin-off. I mean, re-read your sentence:
Paying $250 for XP isn't exactly keeping your OS up to date, sir. Tiger = a year old. XP = going on six.
No worries.
I acknowledge your complete lack of a counterargument. Clearly, I won this debate.
Next.
You know, I was going to thank you for batting it around with me (I enjoy a little debate now and then), but if you're going to be an asshole just because I disagree with you, never mind.
You implied it when you said the law was wrong. Maybe you forgot what you read, so here it is: "The problem is with the law, and with those who sponsored it, wrote it, and voted for it." You are arguing against copyright law, which means you don't believe artists should be protected by copyright law. Now do you understand what you wrote?
And once again, I have to point out that this has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with pirating artists' music today and making sure they don't get paid for their work.
I know you think using words like "draconian" somehow bolsters your position, but all it does is prove my point that you're just using emotional arguments to distract from the fact piracy is nothing more than freeloading off of other hard-working human beings.
Creation and art are whatever people want them to be. Artists make their careers out of selling their art. Who are you to tell them they're not allowed to make money from their work? More lame anti-capitalist garbage from dorm-room hipsters.
They absolutely, 100% are. It's called copyright law. Artists have the right not to have their material taken without compensation.
Hahahaha! "Cultural rape." More melodramatic, hyperbolic crap deriving from passionate emotions rather than logic and truth.
Society doesn't have a "right" to an artist's material without having to pay for it. In fact, society doesn't have a right to any artists' materials at all. Please cite the laws that state such.
All of this is, as I stated before, more irrelevant nonsense designed to distract from the fact that pirating music is wrong. Scapegoat the RIAA so that people forget what they're doing. "The RIAA made me do it! They're cultural rapists!!"
Copyrights have always been about protecting the rights of copyright owners. It isn't to "benefit the culture."
None of this has ANYTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH PIRATING AN ARTIST'S MUSIC TODAY. Now, I know you'll respo
After all, random Slashdot comments are such an incredible source of accurate information, especially for gathering usage stats when testing your flagship software.
It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact you think the RIAA are bad guys doesn't give justification for piracy.
You think there's a problem with artists' music being protected by copyright? What you're essentially saying here is that an artist doesn't have the right to not have his music pirated.
The public has no right to pirate anything. You also haven't explained how they've broken any "social contract" or how it justifies ensuring that Type O Negative or Foo Fighters don't get paid today.
No, what you're attempting to do is cloud the issue to distract from the fact that stealing isn't right even if the owner is evil. You haven't even explained what makes them "evil" when all they're doing is protecting their rights. It's a tired Slashdot strategy. This is very simple--taking an artist's music without paying them for it is wrong, just as "evil" as you claim the RIAA is. You scapegoat these lobby groups as a way of justifying piracy of artists' music, making sure to never mention the artists in the equation--it's always the RIAA, RIAA, RIAA.
12% of the U.S. notebook market share, and a 15% worldwide install base of nearly 20 million according to IDF.
As opposed to the still-$250 Windows XP Professional.
Just a question. Do you have any scrap of proof at all that this is true beyond your own personal hope that it is? Apple is already getting OS X Leopard feedback from the Mac developers registered with Apple Developer Connection who have legal copies of OS X Leopard Developer Preview.
This has nothing to do with people freeloading music, and the RIAA/MPAA being the "bad guy" in that situation is still not ample justification for not paying Tool today.
Mood: anti-semetic
Listening to: the sounds of Nazi gas chambers
lol so israel and hezbollah stopped fighting. i didn't think it would last that long but the evil j00s of israel needed to see the wrath of iran
yestreday i saw that britney spears video lol !!! shes total white trash and a true american. go to youtube and check it out
so i'm out to get some suits fitted, ttyl