Should I sue Oral-B because my electric toothbrush has a non-user-replaceable rechargeable battery? Honda because my hybrid Accord has a whole array of non-user-replaceable batteries?
Hard to find the info on the battery replacement? Google "iphone battery" and you'll get this... the official Apple site is the second result, and the first one is from CNET talking about the program.
This is just another person looking to make some money with a frivolous lawsuit.
Since the AAC files are DRM free, you can just transcode to MP3. And there are a number of players which can play AAC, including the recent Sony players. So this in no way keeps you locked into using the iPod only (a point Steve even touched on at the event, saying that Apple wasn't worried about it because they compete based on having the best platform, not based on having people locked into their products).
No, it isn't what you're paying for at all. You are paying for a 256kbps file instead of a 128kbps one and the extra bandwidth and distribution costs associated with higher quality files.
I didn't see it mentioned in a brief look at the articles above, but albums will automatically be 256kbps and DRM free at the normal price. This should help encourage album sales. Ideally, they would offer the lower quality songs without DRM as well, but this is undoubtedly prevented by their current contracts with the other labels. Only by offering a new "product" were they able to remove the DRM. This is the same reason that they are unable to remove the DRM from songs released by indie labels that requested no DRM.
there would have been cheap legal DVD duplicators in the market
Instead, there are free, quasi-legal DVD duplicators available for anyone with two ounces of computer ability to download.
Please remind me exactly what difference this makes again?
Won't this have the opposite impact, and just hurt open-source cleints like Azureus? Most open source projects can probably not afford to pay the license fee to use the BitTorrent name, whereas big adware/spyware vendors most certainly could (I'm thinking WhenU/Claria, here).
The need for a browser is hardly eliminated by this as the article suggests. What about the billions of websites that are not owned by Google? Sure, you could search Google for the content, but you'd still need a browser to actually view it.
Let me get this straight: I pay for the TiVo device itself, then I pay a monthly service fee. Now I also have to put up with highly invasive advertising?
This might be acceptable if there was no monthly fee for using the device, but this is akin to adding commercials to HBO. Either choose to be subscription-supported or advertising-supported, but not both.
I can understand both sides of this issue. But assuming that the trend of the distributors cracking down on fansubbers continues, why not have the fansubbers just release their subtitles with no video?
This would allow the die-hard fans to either purchase a legitimate non-English DVD and apply the subtitles themselves (there is lots of software to do this available). This would, in theory, remove the legal burden from the fansubbers since they would no longer be distributing the actual video.
Everyone wins in this case: the anime fans would get to watch the series earlier than they would if they waited for a true English release, the fansubbers continue doing what they do, and the studio/distributor still gets their money from the sale of the DVD.
I know that many anime fans often prefer the fansub to a commercial subtitling because the fansubbers often include translations of on-screen items, not just dialog, so you can figure out if those kanji in the window are significant to the plot of if they are just decoration.
I pay $105.95 a month for Speakeasy DSL. That is for a connection with 6000kbps down, and 768kbps down. That connection has no bandwidth limits. Not a bad deal, if I do say so myself, considering I can run any servers I want on the connection.
Now let's look at the offer that was described in this article. If we convert 40 UK pounds to US dollars, we see that this connection costs around $75 a month, depending on the exchange rate.
My connection through Speakeasy is roughly $25 a month more, has no bandwidth limits (and 500GB is very easy to reach on a fast connection) and a faster upload speed to boot. There is also no mention as to whether this connection allows servers or not. However, I am guessing it doesn't, considering that Speakeasy is an exception on this policy rather than the rule.
When you consider all of these factors, this "best deal around" doesn't really seem to be quite so great anymore.
"Nothing in this section shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service... by a... computer hardware or software provider,... or detection or prevention of the unauthorized use or fradulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software."
The part in bold essentially makes any spyware that is bundled by a software provider (Kazaa, GAIN, etc.) or hardware provider legal. This is actually a win for the spyware industry, as it moves them out of a gray legal area and makes them officially legal. The second bolded portion makes any spying done by the *AAs (or any other copyright holder) legal.
Then they'll come back in a couple of days/weeks and say that "our business customers are unhappy with this decision" and decide to extend the patches through the end of 2006.
Slashdot Mirror
Should I sue Oral-B because my electric toothbrush has a non-user-replaceable rechargeable battery? Honda because my hybrid Accord has a whole array of non-user-replaceable batteries?
Hard to find the info on the battery replacement? Google "iphone battery" and you'll get this... the official Apple site is the second result, and the first one is from CNET talking about the program.
This is just another person looking to make some money with a frivolous lawsuit.
Since the AAC files are DRM free, you can just transcode to MP3. And there are a number of players which can play AAC, including the recent Sony players. So this in no way keeps you locked into using the iPod only (a point Steve even touched on at the event, saying that Apple wasn't worried about it because they compete based on having the best platform, not based on having people locked into their products).
No, it isn't what you're paying for at all. You are paying for a 256kbps file instead of a 128kbps one and the extra bandwidth and distribution costs associated with higher quality files.
I didn't see it mentioned in a brief look at the articles above, but albums will automatically be 256kbps and DRM free at the normal price. This should help encourage album sales. Ideally, they would offer the lower quality songs without DRM as well, but this is undoubtedly prevented by their current contracts with the other labels. Only by offering a new "product" were they able to remove the DRM. This is the same reason that they are unable to remove the DRM from songs released by indie labels that requested no DRM.
there would have been cheap legal DVD duplicators in the market Instead, there are free, quasi-legal DVD duplicators available for anyone with two ounces of computer ability to download. Please remind me exactly what difference this makes again?
So, why don't we ban them from the US, too? Our human rights record has not exactly been spotless, lately.
Won't this have the opposite impact, and just hurt open-source cleints like Azureus? Most open source projects can probably not afford to pay the license fee to use the BitTorrent name, whereas big adware/spyware vendors most certainly could (I'm thinking WhenU/Claria, here).
See here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/steve/defa ult.mspx
It's `Ballmer` - not `Balmer` - people.
The need for a browser is hardly eliminated by this as the article suggests. What about the billions of websites that are not owned by Google? Sure, you could search Google for the content, but you'd still need a browser to actually view it.
So will we end up with a leaked sex tape of her and Tux now?
Let me get this straight: I pay for the TiVo device itself, then I pay a monthly service fee. Now I also have to put up with highly invasive advertising?
This might be acceptable if there was no monthly fee for using the device, but this is akin to adding commercials to HBO. Either choose to be subscription-supported or advertising-supported, but not both.
That's because it's being slashdotted and can't grab all the frames from the server. Pretty soon you won't be able to watch it at all.
...It's funny, laugh!...
"If Microsoft wanted to break Firefox, they'd look at the source and change the API so it doesn't work in Longhorn."
This would also likely break a lot of other programs.
I just ran a "Deep Scan" with MS Anti-Spyware on a machine with Firefox 1.0 installed. I got 0 results for spyware.
Wouldn't this digital "fingerprint" just be erased/garbled when it is encoded in a different format, like, say, DivX or XViD?
Wouldn't WPA undermine the entire purpose of a public Wi-Fi network?
Hello, it's Slashdot, you should know already!
http://www.amazon.co.jp/
http://www.yesasia.com/
To name just a couple. I order all the time from both sites.
I can understand both sides of this issue. But assuming that the trend of the distributors cracking down on fansubbers continues, why not have the fansubbers just release their subtitles with no video?
This would allow the die-hard fans to either purchase a legitimate non-English DVD and apply the subtitles themselves (there is lots of software to do this available). This would, in theory, remove the legal burden from the fansubbers since they would no longer be distributing the actual video.
Everyone wins in this case: the anime fans would get to watch the series earlier than they would if they waited for a true English release, the fansubbers continue doing what they do, and the studio/distributor still gets their money from the sale of the DVD.
I know that many anime fans often prefer the fansub to a commercial subtitling because the fansubbers often include translations of on-screen items, not just dialog, so you can figure out if those kanji in the window are significant to the plot of if they are just decoration.
Then how are you posting this?
I pay $105.95 a month for Speakeasy DSL. That is for a connection with 6000kbps down, and 768kbps down. That connection has no bandwidth limits. Not a bad deal, if I do say so myself, considering I can run any servers I want on the connection.
Now let's look at the offer that was described in this article. If we convert 40 UK pounds to US dollars, we see that this connection costs around $75 a month, depending on the exchange rate.
My connection through Speakeasy is roughly $25 a month more, has no bandwidth limits (and 500GB is very easy to reach on a fast connection) and a faster upload speed to boot. There is also no mention as to whether this connection allows servers or not. However, I am guessing it doesn't, considering that Speakeasy is an exception on this policy rather than the rule.
When you consider all of these factors, this "best deal around" doesn't really seem to be quite so great anymore.
You can drive a truck through that loophole.
"Nothing in this section shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service ... by a ... computer hardware or software provider, ... or detection or prevention of the unauthorized use or fradulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software."
The part in bold essentially makes any spyware that is bundled by a software provider (Kazaa, GAIN, etc.) or hardware provider legal. This is actually a win for the spyware industry, as it moves them out of a gray legal area and makes them officially legal. The second bolded portion makes any spying done by the *AAs (or any other copyright holder) legal.
Definately not a good thing for the consumer.
What do you mean by "things you shouldn't be?" I thought those were the reasons camera phones were invented in the first place!
I think what they really need over at SpreadFirefox is not more donations, but more servers and more bandwidth.
Then they'll come back in a couple of days/weeks and say that "our business customers are unhappy with this decision" and decide to extend the patches through the end of 2006.