Yes my agenda is to challenge preconceived/. notions that DRM = evil. If you will read previous posts, the other poster actually has a highly politicized agenda, especially considering he makes it clear it originates from an "OpenSource" agenda. Richard Stallman has an agenda and I don't see anyone debating that, but is seriously no one allowed to question him?
My agenda is to say, there are two competing models here, neither of which OP likes. He doesn't want ads in his paid TV (by subscription or say, in front of his movies at the theatre), he doesn't want DRM which annoys would be pirates just enough for content distributers to cut out the advertisements on things like timeshifts and rebroadcasts and turn things like syndication on their heads. DRM is the answer to getting rid of ads, the problem is just that DRM in 2013, is cumbersome, ineffective and incompatible with open source tools.
I suspect in 20 years this will have come out in the wash, so yes I have an agenda. My agenda is to have an open mind and look at why DRM exists and how it can be utilized to determine things like posession and user license positively.
NOT ONCE did I suggest DRM would end piracy, or that piracy has to end for content producers to worry about it. For instance, Game of Thrones is so damn popular, HBO can afford to fan the flames of a bit of icy cold piracy somewhat more than other producers, but you cannot claim that HBO products are 'DRM free'.
They are the ORIGINAL DRM (only available through an encrypted box rented from your cable provider for an additional fee). HBOGo is no exception. It is what allows HBO such a model that you are not bombarded with commercials.
But I have an agenda and no one is interested in discussing the ramifications. Fine, but I expect more of/.
Sorry for my harsh words i wish slashdot had an edit. My idea hasnt changed. You have good points about drm in 2013 but we disagree as to its flaws and economic fundamentals. I urge you to rethink some of your principles as to what drm in 2030 might look like....
You make the same broad assumptions about its current flaws and underlying business models that i see everywhere...they are simply incorrect In many cases. One example is that Drm ripping is any different than someone pirating airwave tv. These ideas form the basis of the rest of your argument so i have trouble reconciling that with reality. I hope you find this more respectful than my original statement about the validity of your points
Clearly you have an agenda and aren't interested in views that don't conform to your idea that information is free naturally. Conversation over.
There is no world for you in which compromise exists because you're extreme in your view. You'll pardon me if I give you as much credit as I do nazis, gender studies grads, anti-abortionists and the WBC.
>And completely useless due to DRM and the fact that I need to buy a computer dedicated to watching TV on. No thanks.
Not really, this is completely achievable without a PC. You may find an Apple TV helpful, but I can understand that this is undesirable to you.
>Then I guess the media industry will continue to not get my business.
I can appreciate this too, but I disagree vehemently on your position with DRM. There is good and bad DRM, just like there is good and bad nuclear technology, or good and bad data-mining technology. I'm not saying DRM today is appropriate or even desireable, but some form must be enacted to ensure security of contents. The only other way is to broadcast to everyone and force them to watch commercials. It's the only way content producers can ensure revenue stream. If you have a better idea that's great, but until that time DRM is here to stay.
To be clear: DRM has a place in our society. DRM as it is today is cumbersome and in many ways useless, but it does not mean the concept is wrong or should not be perfected. Many of the issues affecting DRM have to do with patents, implementation, and lack of standards. Reminds me of the old days of computing. Patience my friend, and I hope one day you too can enjoy the a la carte you desire. I do not judge anyone for acting in the grey areas of the law in the meantime.
I just want to point out a service like Itunes is pretty reasonable at 3$ an episode for many 1hr shows (not sure about Breaking Bad).
16 episdes *3 = 48$ ~= bluray TV season series set.
A la carte is here (sort of), you just don't like the messenger. You will also never get a la carte without accepting some form of DRM, because without DRM, content companies need to advertise (and even this is ineffective due to low barrier of entry for digital editing and distribution)/
Furthermore your entire premise assumes government and business are closed systems.
The only problem is your avoidance of an actual question originating from a logical analysis of your original statement. No amount of AC derailment will take me off your bullshit scent. I'm talking one thing and you are misdirecting with quite another.
I think in your rush to argue (rather pedantically and without consequence I may add), you missed the fact that if brilliant people in charge, and poor and middle class and rich people live better today for any reason, why get rid of brilliant people being in charge again?
The flaw in this contrarian view is that it is predicated upon the concept that while brilliant people are indeed conistently more competent, end results are somehow worse with brilliant people 'in charge'. Even as an occasional imbecile, I'm not even remotely convinced this logic is sound.
For instance, a person making a wage of 20k in 1980 now makes 60-70k. As a middle class person, you cannot convince me I do not live better now. I've also been poor. Minimum wage in 1980 was about $3 ($6240/ year), now $7.25 (15080/y). That's if you're lucky enough to have a full time job 52 weeks of the year at that rate with health insurance. We won't even get into welfare, but notice how middle class incomes have tripled+, while working poor has not. This surely is a travesty! And yet, poor people have never lived better in the US. There are surely more than there used to be, though.
Point is, "brilliant" people- while brilliant, they do not run the world. I cannot concede they are more likely to exploit; and even if they were, how could we suppose replacing them? If we look at incomes, clearly we see a decline. However, when I visit my jobless friend's trailer and enjoy his cheap but passable big screen TV and his 'blu-discs' and his equally high-speed data connection, I have to think "Damn, he lives way better than I did back when I experienced poverty in the 1980s"
Don't get too self assured with your mod points. This is factually incorrect and it is you who is being semantically disingenuous.
The etymological opposite of TAX is SUBSIDY.
A subsidy is a payment or relief of tax to generate additional production towards the recipient. Think of it as a CLASS BONUS A tax is a payment or increase of tax to generate additional revenue/increase production costs. Think of it as a CLASS PENALTY.
There is no nuance here. The opposite of Tax is Subsidy. Therefore TAX BREAK = SUBSIDY.
How could I be defensive when I was on the offensive?
Also, unsure how I could be happier, I don't usually work with many programmers with your kind of attitude. And if we do encounter them, the team usually buffers them out to some basket weaving defect.
I'm just trying to point out, there are far more competent people, than programmer man-children who believe in the genius of their own farts.
>I wasn't referring to incompetence among programmers, I was talking about society in general.
Yes, so was I. I'm positive I know how this was lost on you.
>If a programmer can hose a production asset accidentally, that's a failure of management, specifically in providing adequate resources to create a "san blah blah blah everyone that's not me is an idiot moron blah blah I don't think you're actually a programmer.
Actually I am (trained) but I instead ply my trade supplying such sandboxes, resources. Sometimes I even advocate for programmers, lest they are unable to advocate for themselves effectively. Let me tell you I'm a fucking expert in protecting programmers from oopsies and if I had a nickel for everytime I've been called-out/implied/rumoured to be incompetent for 'not being a programmer' I'd have quit years ago. The reason I didn't get into programming? Because I'm good with people and words that aren't syntactically defined. Programmers need to be protected from *both* themselves and the business. Anyone who says different is either management in disguise, incompetent or an aspie programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes my agenda is to challenge preconceived /. notions that DRM = evil. If you will read previous posts, the other poster actually has a highly politicized agenda, especially considering he makes it clear it originates from an "OpenSource" agenda. Richard Stallman has an agenda and I don't see anyone debating that, but is seriously no one allowed to question him?
My agenda is to say, there are two competing models here, neither of which OP likes. He doesn't want ads in his paid TV (by subscription or say, in front of his movies at the theatre), he doesn't want DRM which annoys would be pirates just enough for content distributers to cut out the advertisements on things like timeshifts and rebroadcasts and turn things like syndication on their heads. DRM is the answer to getting rid of ads, the problem is just that DRM in 2013, is cumbersome, ineffective and incompatible with open source tools.
I suspect in 20 years this will have come out in the wash, so yes I have an agenda. My agenda is to have an open mind and look at why DRM exists and how it can be utilized to determine things like posession and user license positively.
NOT ONCE did I suggest DRM would end piracy, or that piracy has to end for content producers to worry about it. For instance, Game of Thrones is so damn popular, HBO can afford to fan the flames of a bit of icy cold piracy somewhat more than other producers, but you cannot claim that HBO products are 'DRM free'.
They are the ORIGINAL DRM (only available through an encrypted box rented from your cable provider for an additional fee). HBOGo is no exception. It is what allows HBO such a model that you are not bombarded with commercials.
But I have an agenda and no one is interested in discussing the ramifications. Fine, but I expect more of /.
Sega claims SNES underpowered for core gamers.
Sorry for my harsh words i wish slashdot had an edit. My idea hasnt changed. You have good points about drm in 2013 but we disagree as to its flaws and economic fundamentals. I urge you to rethink some of your principles as to what drm in 2030 might look like....
You make the same broad assumptions about its current flaws and underlying business models that i see everywhere...they are simply incorrect In many cases. One example is that Drm ripping is any different than someone pirating airwave tv. These ideas form the basis of the rest of your argument so i have trouble reconciling that with reality. I hope you find this more respectful than my original statement about the validity of your points
Clearly you have an agenda and aren't interested in views that don't conform to your idea that information is free naturally. Conversation over.
There is no world for you in which compromise exists because you're extreme in your view. You'll pardon me if I give you as much credit as I do nazis, gender studies grads, anti-abortionists and the WBC.
>And completely useless due to DRM and the fact that I need to buy a computer dedicated to watching TV on. No thanks.
Not really, this is completely achievable without a PC. You may find an Apple TV helpful, but I can understand that this is undesirable to you.
>Then I guess the media industry will continue to not get my business.
I can appreciate this too, but I disagree vehemently on your position with DRM. There is good and bad DRM, just like there is good and bad nuclear technology, or good and bad data-mining technology. I'm not saying DRM today is appropriate or even desireable, but some form must be enacted to ensure security of contents. The only other way is to broadcast to everyone and force them to watch commercials. It's the only way content producers can ensure revenue stream. If you have a better idea that's great, but until that time DRM is here to stay.
To be clear: DRM has a place in our society. DRM as it is today is cumbersome and in many ways useless, but it does not mean the concept is wrong or should not be perfected. Many of the issues affecting DRM have to do with patents, implementation, and lack of standards. Reminds me of the old days of computing. Patience my friend, and I hope one day you too can enjoy the a la carte you desire. I do not judge anyone for acting in the grey areas of the law in the meantime.
I just want to point out a service like Itunes is pretty reasonable at 3$ an episode for many 1hr shows (not sure about Breaking Bad).
16 episdes *3 = 48$ ~= bluray TV season series set.
A la carte is here (sort of), you just don't like the messenger. You will also never get a la carte without accepting some form of DRM, because without DRM, content companies need to advertise (and even this is ineffective due to low barrier of entry for digital editing and distribution)/
I tend to agree, but maybe that's the twist? The rich people are not on Elysium and they never were....
Ahah, but it is TURTLES all the way down...
Ever play Jenga?
Furthermore your entire premise assumes government and business are closed systems.
The only problem is your avoidance of an actual question originating from a logical analysis of your original statement. No amount of AC derailment will take me off your bullshit scent. I'm talking one thing and you are misdirecting with quite another.
A case for what? I asked a question you have failed to address in your rush to pick an argument over relative and still quite accurate estimation
At no time did I claim to be brilliant, only middle class and once poor. Anything further is simply projection on your part.
A case for what? I asked a question you have failed to address in your rush to pick an argument over relative and still quite accurate estimation.
Actually inflation numbers are quite debateable, and used a mind experiment (and never claimed solid numbers) to illustrate my observation.
The numbers I cited are well within normal ranges.
*sigh*
I think in your rush to argue (rather pedantically and without consequence I may add), you missed the fact that if brilliant people in charge, and poor and middle class and rich people live better today for any reason, why get rid of brilliant people being in charge again?
The flaw in this contrarian view is that it is predicated upon the concept that while brilliant people are indeed conistently more competent, end results are somehow worse with brilliant people 'in charge'. Even as an occasional imbecile, I'm not even remotely convinced this logic is sound.
For instance, a person making a wage of 20k in 1980 now makes 60-70k. As a middle class person, you cannot convince me I do not live better now. I've also been poor. Minimum wage in 1980 was about $3 ($6240/ year), now $7.25 (15080/y). That's if you're lucky enough to have a full time job 52 weeks of the year at that rate with health insurance. We won't even get into welfare, but notice how middle class incomes have tripled+, while working poor has not. This surely is a travesty! And yet, poor people have never lived better in the US. There are surely more than there used to be, though.
Point is, "brilliant" people- while brilliant, they do not run the world. I cannot concede they are more likely to exploit; and even if they were, how could we suppose replacing them? If we look at incomes, clearly we see a decline. However, when I visit my jobless friend's trailer and enjoy his cheap but passable big screen TV and his 'blu-discs' and his equally high-speed data connection, I have to think "Damn, he lives way better than I did back when I experienced poverty in the 1980s"
WOOSH.
Thank you, sir, for telling it like it is.
UID > 1m. Likely was barely sentient enough to remember Ronnie losing his marbles, and to read Bush I's lips on the boob toob.
>conservative movement of the Reagan era is LONG gone
However, this is simply incorrect. Two names, often heard together: Grover Norquist.
>No, the real problem is all of y'all on the bottom rung are stepping on each other to try to get up, and you just don't care
I don't see how one can blame the victim in this case for the faults of capitalism. Hate the player, not the game?
Don't get too self assured with your mod points. This is factually incorrect and it is you who is being semantically disingenuous.
The etymological opposite of TAX is SUBSIDY.
A subsidy is a payment or relief of tax to generate additional production towards the recipient. Think of it as a CLASS BONUS
A tax is a payment or increase of tax to generate additional revenue/increase production costs. Think of it as a CLASS PENALTY.
There is no nuance here. The opposite of Tax is Subsidy. Therefore TAX BREAK = SUBSIDY.
Agreed. In enterprise it's not what you bought which determines support, it's who you bought it from and for how much.
And how does one easily exchange bitcoins without a payment processor?
I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it's not exactly convenient or safe.
What happens when VISA and MASTERCARD stop taking VPN payments, such that it becomes nearly impossible to pay such a tax?
personalization and generalization. Projection? Let's be honest... This is the "I'm the rubber and you're the glue" of adult discourse.
Although, I do concede: I never said you were a good programmer, either.
How could I be defensive when I was on the offensive?
Also, unsure how I could be happier, I don't usually work with many programmers with your kind of attitude. And if we do encounter them, the team usually buffers them out to some basket weaving defect.
I'm just trying to point out, there are far more competent people, than programmer man-children who believe in the genius of their own farts.
>I wasn't referring to incompetence among programmers, I was talking about society in general.
Yes, so was I. I'm positive I know how this was lost on you.
>If a programmer can hose a production asset accidentally, that's a failure of management, specifically in providing adequate resources to create a "san blah blah blah everyone that's not me is an idiot moron blah blah I don't think you're actually a programmer.
Actually I am (trained) but I instead ply my trade supplying such sandboxes, resources. Sometimes I even advocate for programmers, lest they are unable to advocate for themselves effectively. Let me tell you I'm a fucking expert in protecting programmers from oopsies and if I had a nickel for everytime I've been called-out/implied/rumoured to be incompetent for 'not being a programmer' I'd have quit years ago. The reason I didn't get into programming? Because I'm good with people and words that aren't syntactically defined. Programmers need to be protected from *both* themselves and the business. Anyone who says different is either management in disguise, incompetent or an aspie programmer.