Yes, it is lame, and no, it's not silly. I just woke up and havn't had a chance to get some food or coffee into me but here goes anyway, I'll try to plow through another post.
It is lame to point out the XBox because the XBox is a custom piece of hardware that Microsoft has a vested interest in keeping closed up for a multitude of purposes, not the least of which being internet multiplay over the XBox Live network. Furthermore, I already pointed out that if you want to mod your XBox, you can easily do so, there won't be any fuzz knocking down your door to haul you off to federal prison. You want to turn your XBox into a piece of commodity hardware by installing Linux on it or running XBMC on it? Fine, but you cannot try to resell it and you have no ability to play it's games over XBox Live (Though I believe it has capabilities otherwise for multiplay). It's lame to point out because it's a non-issue, get over it. You purchased a game console from Microsoft, to be used as a game console and limited media (audio) machine. They have every right to cut you off from support on their end if you cease to use it as such, and prosecute you if you attempt to sell modded XBoxes preloaded with copyrighted software.
Alright, I'll admit, WGA and TC is DRM in one of it's many forms, since we started out talking about DRM specifically with regards to multimedia. This does nothing to diminish the purpose of WGA and it's legitimacy, nor the potential of TC in limited environments, which it is meant for. Consumers don't want TC on their standard desktop systems and they won't tolerate it and it's highly illegal implemented in that fashion on a large scale against Joe Blow Desktop User because it would become the epitome of anticompetitive action. It's tough cookies for WGA because there's no law against requiring activation and validation of your software.
I'll say it again, you have to tell Windows Media Player that you want to encode copy protected WMA files, by default it does not and apparently WMP10 in XP SP2 doesn't even give you the option of encoding to MP3, which WMP11 in Vista does. I was able to successfully do my first rip with WMP10, it defaulted to 128kbps WMA non-protected, and copy the file over to multiple computers here at home and have it play back without issue. I call bullshit on your story about your friend and postulate that he pulled a stupid and enabled settings that were disabled by default. I told WMP10 when it started the rip process to keep the settings that it already had (This is a fresh XP SP2 and I hadn't used WMP10 for anything before since I have WinAMP Pro for audio, Media Player Classic for video, and CDex for ripping).
The DRM-ed music that you get from the various music stores that do use DRM (And there are plenty that don't, they simply don't have the market share from what's already a tiny market) does not in any way enforce DRM on files that you personally create on your computer, they are not viral and they don't force anything other than the installation of the proper utilities that enable playback of the protected media.
Finally, I never said Linux was full of DRM! I said DRM is making its way onto the Linux platform as we speak. Sure you'll be able to work around DRM in Linux, the same way you work around it in Windows, by not using it or purchasing files that are protected. KPDF already has DRM in it, and you can compile it without DRM, I first realized this when I noticed some time ago that KPDF has a nodrm USE flag in Gentoo. Banshee is working on iTMS support (Or at least playback of files obtained through iTMS) which in turn enables DRM support in the program. Linus is perfectly willing to allow DRM mechanisms to function on a Linux system, though he speaks mainly about signing binaries or kernel images. This is a voice of reason that generally is drowned out by the zealotry that can cloud vision. As for GStreamer, it is going to have DRM through other means in the near future and already does through Fluendo.
I see though that you don't even want to bother with understanding that the state of DRM on Linux is the same as it is on Windows, it's there but you're not being force-fed anything unless you happen to procure restricted media from a source of your own choosing. If you don't want to deal with DRM-ed files, don't buy them and don't encode them. What the hell is so hard to understand about that? And guess what, if Microsoft didn't enable support for playback of these files through their own programs, the demand would be fulfilled through whatever means necessary.
P.S. -- If you're making copies of your files by exercising your fair use rights, you shouldn't have any problem saying "Oh, I fucked up, let me re-encode this file that I accidentally made copy protected."
I was speaking on the general state of windows computing. Currently under XP this can happen if you're not careful what you check. I had someone ask me about this just yesterday. MS isn't known for admitting they screwed up and backtracking on something like that. If they have, great, but the fact of the matter is they already went down that road. Its just proof that they have no problem testing the waters with highly restrictive DRM.
I'll check that out next time I boot my XP to play The Sims 2 (Currently gives me some minor graphical glitches in Vista RC2 that I haven't bothered investigating). If you would be so gracious as to provide proof positive that Microsoft did make copy protection the default for MP3s in any iteration of Windows Media Player that made it to XP, please let me know since I'm going to be so gracious as to provide links to you that you requested.
and I doubt they form 51% or more of MS customer base.
So we only care about the majority of users with something that's entirely optional. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to provide all these tools for creating your own music, video, whatever with tools that come with Vista, and instead of making it easy on content creators large or small, we decide to instead tell them that they need to go elsewhere for that when it's trivial to implement? That makes no business sense.
Considering that they're at a stage where if you rip mp3s with media player you can't easily send them to another PC you use, they're already there.
Stop spreading this goddamn lie that I see coming out of the mouth of every fool who hasn't even bothered to see if it's true in Vista! You don't even have the capability to enable copy protection on MP3 files encoded in Windows Media Player 11! It doesn't even default to using copy protection when you encode to WMA or WMA Pro!
There isn't one end user out there that wants more DRM, so MS isn't doing it for the mass market.
Some people might not want their own personally created and original content redistributed to other machines.
By the way, there's plenty of DRM support making it's way into the Linux world, you obviously don't know where to look if you haven't seen it making it's way.
Like XBox what? You mean the console that's still lagging behind the big players in the market? Do you know how easy it is to mod an XBox, as well, to make it an excellent media center machine? A friend of mine did just that and it's a great piece of hardware for that purpose? So it can't rip burned CDs by default, that's the only thing I can think of that you'd be pointing out. Arguing DRM by pointing at the XBox is pretty lame, and for the record, I do support the idea that they can say whatever the hell they want about how the hardware is to be used, but I also support the idea that I don't have to give a damn what they say.
There never will be "one day" when they make DRM mandatory.
You're right, but not for the reasons you think you are. Microsoft may make some unethical decisions but they're not stupid, and neither are consumers when push comes to shove. The fact of the matter is that there will always be an alternative that isn't so restrictive, and people will use it if it becomes a necessity.
P.S. -- WGA is a legitimate effort on their part to minimize piracy, whether piracy helps and helped solidify their user base in the world. This is not to say WGA is effective, because quite frankly plenty of people don't have to worry about it at all, even with pirated software. The false positives, well, that's them shooting themselves in the foot, and they are getting a backlash from upset users (Though the false positive rate is really low, and the system is inherently vulnerable to failure, even ignoring that almost all software has bugs). TC will not become widespread on desktop systems because it's simply stupid outside of an environment that truly needs the controls it provides in order to prevent rogue software from running on a system that shouldn't run it. Neither of these two technologies have anything to do with DRM.
When and if Microsoft ever decides to make DRM mandatory in their products, there will be a great migration to other software solutions that don't cram it down their user's throats. Furthermore, I'd see plenty of legal trouble for them if they were to do so and prevent people who want to make copies that they can use freely for their own enjoyment on whatever system they happen to have for playback.
Besides, you're obviously an OSS supporter, and considering how Linux as a desktop is easily viable (More game developers would be nice) and Mac has been viable for quite some time now, you should realize that Microsoft would never risk their throne in such a plain fashion, all in the name of appeasing the **AA.
In the meantime, continue on and hold out for the day that you can say "I told you so!" Nobody will try to stop you.
When DRM is mandatory, let me know. You can encode WMA/MP3/WAV with WMP11 at various quality levels and with or without copy protection, and if I remember correctly copy protection is disabled by default. As for video, or if you're talking about Media Foundation in general, it's not something that's forced upon you by anyone but the content providers. Bitch at them if you want to bitch to anyone, and stop giving them money.
The Black Panthers has toned down their rhetoric a lot since the days of their inception. The KKK, on the other hand, is still as hateful as ever to many more groups.
Yeah because the dude couldn't possibly have created the account in an urge to respond to a topic that he could make a meaningful contribution to. If you're suspicious alright, but don't cry shill until you can say so with complete confidence.
There are plenty of people testing Vista who didn't pay a dime to have the privilege of doing so, myself included. Being a member of the other programs that grant eligibility have many other bonuses even without being given access to virtually every build of Vista that Microsoft makes public. Being in the CPP doesn't guarantee you an invitation to test every public build, but it does give you a key that you can use for those builds in addition to the ones that you get specifically invited to.
Anyways, arguing about this terminology is stupid and does nothing but create yet another lame flame war revolving around something Microsoft has done. To pretend that they're using these admittedly less-than-accurate names for these builds in an attempt to garner more money is absurd at best. If anything it's to eliminate the idea that Vista is going to be delayed yet again for a significant amount of time, and it looks very likely that Microsoft is going to meet their deadline quite easily.
Holy crap that thing barfs all over the place, I don't know if it's because of Vista or what. As for the Java thing, I'm sorry you feel that way, it works plenty well enough for me and everyone that I know personally. Maybe you just aren't doing things as you should (I use plenty of Java apps, my favorites being Azureus and Jdiskreport, and it's quite easy to tell Java to not check for updates and solve long loading times, one of them involves purchasing a decent computer).
Microsoft software is just as limited from modifying and extending the kernel as non-Microsoft software, legitimate or not. Furthermore, isn't all this complaining about the 64-bit edition specifically? You know, the 64-bit edition that not a whole lot of people are running anways? A lot of the functionality is present in the x64 Edition of Windows XP, too, is it not?
I have yet to hear a compelling argument with specific examples on why anyone is complaining about this. People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel? So what you're basically saying is to hell with making it more difficult to exploit the system, keep the current model because... well... I don't really see what the because is. If the keys to the castle were given to anyone, they'd end up leaked just as they end up being leaked when an exploit is discovered and knowledge of it is released into the wild. If the problem is truly so great then Symantec and McAfee can continue doing what they do already -- Fuck up the base system in order to get it to do what they want it to do.
And if it's about double-whammy Security Center notification nonsense as stated in this article at Infoworld, maybe it would be a good idea to just say something like "Hey, Microsoft has this part taken care of, we don't have to bother with it"? I know that I have no issues whatsoever with my AV of choice, Avast!. In any case, it will be very interesting to see what comes of all this in the near future as Vista sees it's adoption. Seems to me like it's going to be largely the same ol same ol, only the methodology will be different.
Excellent post! As one AC has already pointed out before, Avast! has no problems whatsoever either, and is integrating wonderfully into my Vista RC1 installation.
Talk about a predictable response. His post was the one that monochromized everything, by rightly stating that the reasons the terrorists are operating are many?
I seriously hope you never run for public office of any sort, when you claim that nobody can understand radical Islam because it's so insane. To offer that up as a defense for failure to combat the issue in a meaningful way is nothing short of incredible, considering that it's quite possible to understand the mindset of another individual or group should you devote the proper resources to doing so, and have the determination required at the same time. The warhawks and comfortable sheep are seemingly happy to admit that they have no true understanding of our enemy or their motivations, yet expect to win out in the end. This is not how you win a war of any sorts.
Scumbag, coming from someone like you. The sad thing is you don't realize how meaningless that is, even if you were to have the balls to post under your username rather than anonymously. There was no name calling in his post except to rightly point out that the advent of radical fascist regimes is hardly a unique trait to Islam. The term Islamofascist is offensive not because of the fact that it correctly identifies someone's mindset, but because it draws attention away from the fact that this is not a problem only Islam faces. I'll be expecting your foul-mouthed reply, AC.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is lame, and no, it's not silly. I just woke up and havn't had a chance to get some food or coffee into me but here goes anyway, I'll try to plow through another post.
It is lame to point out the XBox because the XBox is a custom piece of hardware that Microsoft has a vested interest in keeping closed up for a multitude of purposes, not the least of which being internet multiplay over the XBox Live network. Furthermore, I already pointed out that if you want to mod your XBox, you can easily do so, there won't be any fuzz knocking down your door to haul you off to federal prison. You want to turn your XBox into a piece of commodity hardware by installing Linux on it or running XBMC on it? Fine, but you cannot try to resell it and you have no ability to play it's games over XBox Live (Though I believe it has capabilities otherwise for multiplay). It's lame to point out because it's a non-issue, get over it. You purchased a game console from Microsoft, to be used as a game console and limited media (audio) machine. They have every right to cut you off from support on their end if you cease to use it as such, and prosecute you if you attempt to sell modded XBoxes preloaded with copyrighted software.
Alright, I'll admit, WGA and TC is DRM in one of it's many forms, since we started out talking about DRM specifically with regards to multimedia. This does nothing to diminish the purpose of WGA and it's legitimacy, nor the potential of TC in limited environments, which it is meant for. Consumers don't want TC on their standard desktop systems and they won't tolerate it and it's highly illegal implemented in that fashion on a large scale against Joe Blow Desktop User because it would become the epitome of anticompetitive action. It's tough cookies for WGA because there's no law against requiring activation and validation of your software.
That was a troll, sorry to burst your bubble.
I dunno why my WMP10 doesn't have an MP3 encoder, in that case. Here's what mine looks like.
I'll say it again, you have to tell Windows Media Player that you want to encode copy protected WMA files, by default it does not and apparently WMP10 in XP SP2 doesn't even give you the option of encoding to MP3, which WMP11 in Vista does. I was able to successfully do my first rip with WMP10, it defaulted to 128kbps WMA non-protected, and copy the file over to multiple computers here at home and have it play back without issue. I call bullshit on your story about your friend and postulate that he pulled a stupid and enabled settings that were disabled by default. I told WMP10 when it started the rip process to keep the settings that it already had (This is a fresh XP SP2 and I hadn't used WMP10 for anything before since I have WinAMP Pro for audio, Media Player Classic for video, and CDex for ripping).
The DRM-ed music that you get from the various music stores that do use DRM (And there are plenty that don't, they simply don't have the market share from what's already a tiny market) does not in any way enforce DRM on files that you personally create on your computer, they are not viral and they don't force anything other than the installation of the proper utilities that enable playback of the protected media.
Finally, I never said Linux was full of DRM! I said DRM is making its way onto the Linux platform as we speak. Sure you'll be able to work around DRM in Linux, the same way you work around it in Windows, by not using it or purchasing files that are protected. KPDF already has DRM in it, and you can compile it without DRM, I first realized this when I noticed some time ago that KPDF has a nodrm USE flag in Gentoo. Banshee is working on iTMS support (Or at least playback of files obtained through iTMS) which in turn enables DRM support in the program. Linus is perfectly willing to allow DRM mechanisms to function on a Linux system, though he speaks mainly about signing binaries or kernel images. This is a voice of reason that generally is drowned out by the zealotry that can cloud vision. As for GStreamer, it is going to have DRM through other means in the near future and already does through Fluendo.
I see though that you don't even want to bother with understanding that the state of DRM on Linux is the same as it is on Windows, it's there but you're not being force-fed anything unless you happen to procure restricted media from a source of your own choosing. If you don't want to deal with DRM-ed files, don't buy them and don't encode them. What the hell is so hard to understand about that? And guess what, if Microsoft didn't enable support for playback of these files through their own programs, the demand would be fulfilled through whatever means necessary.
P.S. -- If you're making copies of your files by exercising your fair use rights, you shouldn't have any problem saying "Oh, I fucked up, let me re-encode this file that I accidentally made copy protected."
You, sir, should get a cookie for speaking such truth.
I'll check that out next time I boot my XP to play The Sims 2 (Currently gives me some minor graphical glitches in Vista RC2 that I haven't bothered investigating). If you would be so gracious as to provide proof positive that Microsoft did make copy protection the default for MP3s in any iteration of Windows Media Player that made it to XP, please let me know since I'm going to be so gracious as to provide links to you that you requested.
So we only care about the majority of users with something that's entirely optional. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to provide all these tools for creating your own music, video, whatever with tools that come with Vista, and instead of making it easy on content creators large or small, we decide to instead tell them that they need to go elsewhere for that when it's trivial to implement? That makes no business sense.
As for your education, here you go oh lazy one:
on DRM in KPDF
Re: DRM-crippled Banshee has no copyleft protection
Torvalds: "DRM is Perfectly OK with Linux
Linux and DRM - succeeding where MS failed?
The RIAA - Hollywood - DRM - Linux Suicide Pact
GStreamer to support DRM
Jesus Christ people are so fucking finicky.
Stop spreading this goddamn lie that I see coming out of the mouth of every fool who hasn't even bothered to see if it's true in Vista! You don't even have the capability to enable copy protection on MP3 files encoded in Windows Media Player 11! It doesn't even default to using copy protection when you encode to WMA or WMA Pro!
Some people might not want their own personally created and original content redistributed to other machines.
By the way, there's plenty of DRM support making it's way into the Linux world, you obviously don't know where to look if you haven't seen it making it's way.
Like XBox what? You mean the console that's still lagging behind the big players in the market? Do you know how easy it is to mod an XBox, as well, to make it an excellent media center machine? A friend of mine did just that and it's a great piece of hardware for that purpose? So it can't rip burned CDs by default, that's the only thing I can think of that you'd be pointing out. Arguing DRM by pointing at the XBox is pretty lame, and for the record, I do support the idea that they can say whatever the hell they want about how the hardware is to be used, but I also support the idea that I don't have to give a damn what they say.
You're right, but not for the reasons you think you are. Microsoft may make some unethical decisions but they're not stupid, and neither are consumers when push comes to shove. The fact of the matter is that there will always be an alternative that isn't so restrictive, and people will use it if it becomes a necessity.
P.S. -- WGA is a legitimate effort on their part to minimize piracy, whether piracy helps and helped solidify their user base in the world. This is not to say WGA is effective, because quite frankly plenty of people don't have to worry about it at all, even with pirated software. The false positives, well, that's them shooting themselves in the foot, and they are getting a backlash from upset users (Though the false positive rate is really low, and the system is inherently vulnerable to failure, even ignoring that almost all software has bugs). TC will not become widespread on desktop systems because it's simply stupid outside of an environment that truly needs the controls it provides in order to prevent rogue software from running on a system that shouldn't run it. Neither of these two technologies have anything to do with DRM.
When and if Microsoft ever decides to make DRM mandatory in their products, there will be a great migration to other software solutions that don't cram it down their user's throats. Furthermore, I'd see plenty of legal trouble for them if they were to do so and prevent people who want to make copies that they can use freely for their own enjoyment on whatever system they happen to have for playback.
Besides, you're obviously an OSS supporter, and considering how Linux as a desktop is easily viable (More game developers would be nice) and Mac has been viable for quite some time now, you should realize that Microsoft would never risk their throne in such a plain fashion, all in the name of appeasing the **AA.
In the meantime, continue on and hold out for the day that you can say "I told you so!" Nobody will try to stop you.
That's pretty fun to do though, as long as you get a quick respawn. :)
When DRM is mandatory, let me know. You can encode WMA/MP3/WAV with WMP11 at various quality levels and with or without copy protection, and if I remember correctly copy protection is disabled by default. As for video, or if you're talking about Media Foundation in general, it's not something that's forced upon you by anyone but the content providers. Bitch at them if you want to bitch to anyone, and stop giving them money.
The Black Panthers has toned down their rhetoric a lot since the days of their inception. The KKK, on the other hand, is still as hateful as ever to many more groups.
How is it breaking your music?
That's nice.
Yeah because the dude couldn't possibly have created the account in an urge to respond to a topic that he could make a meaningful contribution to. If you're suspicious alright, but don't cry shill until you can say so with complete confidence.
In any case, the guy is right about the program.
There are plenty of people testing Vista who didn't pay a dime to have the privilege of doing so, myself included. Being a member of the other programs that grant eligibility have many other bonuses even without being given access to virtually every build of Vista that Microsoft makes public. Being in the CPP doesn't guarantee you an invitation to test every public build, but it does give you a key that you can use for those builds in addition to the ones that you get specifically invited to.
Anyways, arguing about this terminology is stupid and does nothing but create yet another lame flame war revolving around something Microsoft has done. To pretend that they're using these admittedly less-than-accurate names for these builds in an attempt to garner more money is absurd at best. If anything it's to eliminate the idea that Vista is going to be delayed yet again for a significant amount of time, and it looks very likely that Microsoft is going to meet their deadline quite easily.
Thank you so much for the link, saved me the trouble of finding a torrent! It's running very beautifully now on my system alongside XP. :D
Holy crap that thing barfs all over the place, I don't know if it's because of Vista or what. As for the Java thing, I'm sorry you feel that way, it works plenty well enough for me and everyone that I know personally. Maybe you just aren't doing things as you should (I use plenty of Java apps, my favorites being Azureus and Jdiskreport, and it's quite easy to tell Java to not check for updates and solve long loading times, one of them involves purchasing a decent computer).
Lol, very nice! :)
This one is better. :)
Microsoft software is just as limited from modifying and extending the kernel as non-Microsoft software, legitimate or not. Furthermore, isn't all this complaining about the 64-bit edition specifically? You know, the 64-bit edition that not a whole lot of people are running anways? A lot of the functionality is present in the x64 Edition of Windows XP, too, is it not?
I have yet to hear a compelling argument with specific examples on why anyone is complaining about this. People have already found ways to attack the Vista kernel? So what you're basically saying is to hell with making it more difficult to exploit the system, keep the current model because... well... I don't really see what the because is. If the keys to the castle were given to anyone, they'd end up leaked just as they end up being leaked when an exploit is discovered and knowledge of it is released into the wild. If the problem is truly so great then Symantec and McAfee can continue doing what they do already -- Fuck up the base system in order to get it to do what they want it to do.
And if it's about double-whammy Security Center notification nonsense as stated in this article at Infoworld, maybe it would be a good idea to just say something like "Hey, Microsoft has this part taken care of, we don't have to bother with it"? I know that I have no issues whatsoever with my AV of choice, Avast!. In any case, it will be very interesting to see what comes of all this in the near future as Vista sees it's adoption. Seems to me like it's going to be largely the same ol same ol, only the methodology will be different.
Excellent post! As one AC has already pointed out before, Avast! has no problems whatsoever either, and is integrating wonderfully into my Vista RC1 installation.
Talk about a predictable response. His post was the one that monochromized everything, by rightly stating that the reasons the terrorists are operating are many?
I seriously hope you never run for public office of any sort, when you claim that nobody can understand radical Islam because it's so insane. To offer that up as a defense for failure to combat the issue in a meaningful way is nothing short of incredible, considering that it's quite possible to understand the mindset of another individual or group should you devote the proper resources to doing so, and have the determination required at the same time. The warhawks and comfortable sheep are seemingly happy to admit that they have no true understanding of our enemy or their motivations, yet expect to win out in the end. This is not how you win a war of any sorts.
Scumbag, coming from someone like you. The sad thing is you don't realize how meaningless that is, even if you were to have the balls to post under your username rather than anonymously. There was no name calling in his post except to rightly point out that the advent of radical fascist regimes is hardly a unique trait to Islam. The term Islamofascist is offensive not because of the fact that it correctly identifies someone's mindset, but because it draws attention away from the fact that this is not a problem only Islam faces. I'll be expecting your foul-mouthed reply, AC.
Well stated, AC.