the "license" is not to launch a rocket, it's to take a picture. Beyond which, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to restrict non-interstate, non-foreign travel? Nowhere.
You confuse access (Area 51) to free press. If you have pictures, you can publish them. The gov't cannot infringe upon civil rights through treaties.
I can be pragmatic, and recognize that there are many Federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, yet still exist and are enforced. The entire body of regulatory "law" is one example - Congress has no authority to deligate its powers. That only proves that we are not a nation of law.
The comparison of quality loss is between the originally purchased (more accurately, licensed) tracks and the end result.
Sure, an original CD converted to MP3 is better than a WM->CD->MP3, but that's not a fair comparison, since the purchaser of the latter was never promised, and had no right to expect, full CD fidelity.
Rather, the comparison is the loss from (original) CD->MP3 vs. the loss from WM->CDR->MP3, which is comparable - the end result of the latter will be worse than the end result of the former, but the originals already differed in quality by about the same amount.
And, as I said, it's the consumer's choice whether to recompress using lossy compression.
I guess consumer protection acts have to exist precisely because of people who think like this. You make some pretty big (and imho incorrect) assumptions about the general buying public.
My incorrect assumption may be that the general buying public reads the contracts they enter into. Your incorrect assumption is that the general buying public cares at all about the difference in quality between PCM and MP3, or about how many beats per minute each song has.
You're also entirely incorrect in your original statement, that there "is a loss of quality and meta-data when" burning to CD. There is of course NO lost quality when burning an MP3 to CD, since the bitstream is identical to that used for playback. Quality loss only comes in if you then choose to recompress back to MP3, but that's a choice, and you would have a similar loss in quality if you compressed from a non-DRM original CD, too, so that's not a legitimate complaint.
Metadata is not lost, although it may not be automatically carried over by whatever tools you choose to use. The only original metadata which is useful is that which is visible to the user at some point, so they can always copy/paste, or write it down, whatever. That it's an inconvenience is due to format shifting, not that the original was DRMed. Non-DRMed tracks burned to CD also "lose" metadata, simply because CDs don't support the range of metadata which WM or MP3 does.
Finally, if someone was dumb enough to buy music in the proprietary Windows Media Player format, instead of a standard one, like PCM, MP3, or AAC, then they've already committed themselves to limitations in transfer/playback that standard formats don't suffer from.
Unless there are unfulfilled contractual commitments. I'm not suggesting there did, but if Yahoo had promised something like "you will have the ability to move the license for your music to another computer at any time in the future," then yes, the parent company would be committing fraud by closing down that portion of the business.
There is a loss of quality and meta-data when you do this. Of course it's not actually the end of the "world" but it is the end of the music (at specified quality & features) that you paid for. So pretty much it is the end of the world (for your purchase).
If you bought, then the limitations of DRM were also a part of the purchase, and should have been factored into the purchase decision. No one has suggested that by discontinuing the service, Yahoo has in any way broken their side of the contract by discontinuing the service. So, yes, you do still have exactly what you paid for.
or even competition. I don't view them that way (I don't pay for any of them) - they're just different choices.
And to all those ignorant mods who called me a troll: Opera has been around in fairly significant numbers since about 2000. Even if it had minimal market share, that is the timeframe in which it became noticed by the web cognoscenti. Firefox came out around the end of 2004 (pre-Mozilla came out around the end of 2002).
At the time Mozilla/Firefox was being formed, IE was pretty static, with no significant feature development occurring (IE6 in 2001, IE7 not until 2006). IE certainly wasn't driving feature development in other browsers. Safari didn't even exist in public until 2003.
In addition to the obvious tabbed browsing (no, they didn't invent tabs, but they did popularize them in browsers), Opera has also set the bar for standards support and rendering speed.
Yes, Opera has been a significant factor in driving feature development in other browsers, and it deserves that recognition and respect, even if you choose to use something else.
Productivity doesn't require "a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror". Nor does it require a trip to some insulated "front line" to market PR for some war which has nothing to do with national defense.
and since a program's sole ultimate purpose is to "be run," and it must be in RAM to do so, it's a severe indictment of the judicial system that putting a (legitimate copy) of a program into RAM isn't a very simple case of "fair use."
In point of fact, as far as copyright, it is the only use.
Others can't compete with telcos, which have subsidized rights-of-way. At least the citizens involved ostensibly have a say in how much of their tax dollar goes to subsidizing the services they receive.
judge says it's not a natural monopoly, and tells the telco's they have to negotiate right-of-way wherever they have lines (new or existing). Additionally, there is no public benefit to restricting municipalities from competing with the consent of their citizens, so the telcos can go suck on a rock.
Well, a Nobel prize is useful for the cash it provides to the winner, but the question certainly meant what useful things has it produced for the world at large? Did knowledge of some light-years-distant binary solve world hunger, and no one was told about it?
Anything that tracks NEOs gives you a return on your tax dollar in that it keeps you aware of any catastrophic threats.
Oh, like I want to know that I'm going to die next week. Really, knowing about some global catastrophic event in advance would probably just cause massive panic and unrest before we all die. What good is that? Where's the return?
...that because we spend alot of money poorly, we should spend more money poorly?
I disagree - instead of writing Congress, those who want Aricibo funded should donate money directly, instead of trying to use the power of government to force everyone else to pay through taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
the "license" is not to launch a rocket, it's to take a picture.
Beyond which, where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given the right to restrict non-interstate, non-foreign travel? Nowhere.
You confuse access (Area 51) to free press. If you have pictures, you can publish them. The gov't cannot infringe upon civil rights through treaties.
I can be pragmatic, and recognize that there are many Federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, yet still exist and are enforced. The entire body of regulatory "law" is one example - Congress has no authority to deligate its powers. That only proves that we are not a nation of law.
completely unconstitutional. Not only does it violate freedom of the press, but Congress has no constitutional authority to create such a law.
he needs a ticket because he has an assigned seat. It's a bouncy one, so he can jump up and down gleefully on it.
The comparison of quality loss is between the originally purchased (more accurately, licensed) tracks and the end result.
Sure, an original CD converted to MP3 is better than a WM->CD->MP3, but that's not a fair comparison, since the purchaser of the latter was never promised, and had no right to expect, full CD fidelity.
Rather, the comparison is the loss from (original) CD->MP3 vs. the loss from WM->CDR->MP3, which is comparable - the end result of the latter will be worse than the end result of the former, but the originals already differed in quality by about the same amount.
And, as I said, it's the consumer's choice whether to recompress using lossy compression.
I guess consumer protection acts have to exist precisely because of people who think like this. You make some pretty big (and imho incorrect) assumptions about the general buying public.
My incorrect assumption may be that the general buying public reads the contracts they enter into. Your incorrect assumption is that the general buying public cares at all about the difference in quality between PCM and MP3, or about how many beats per minute each song has.
You're also entirely incorrect in your original statement, that there "is a loss of quality and meta-data when" burning to CD. There is of course NO lost quality when burning an MP3 to CD, since the bitstream is identical to that used for playback. Quality loss only comes in if you then choose to recompress back to MP3, but that's a choice, and you would have a similar loss in quality if you compressed from a non-DRM original CD, too, so that's not a legitimate complaint.
Metadata is not lost, although it may not be automatically carried over by whatever tools you choose to use. The only original metadata which is useful is that which is visible to the user at some point, so they can always copy/paste, or write it down, whatever. That it's an inconvenience is due to format shifting, not that the original was DRMed. Non-DRMed tracks burned to CD also "lose" metadata, simply because CDs don't support the range of metadata which WM or MP3 does.
Finally, if someone was dumb enough to buy music in the proprietary Windows Media Player format, instead of a standard one, like PCM, MP3, or AAC, then they've already committed themselves to limitations in transfer/playback that standard formats don't suffer from.
Unless there are unfulfilled contractual commitments. I'm not suggesting there did, but if Yahoo had promised something like "you will have the ability to move the license for your music to another computer at any time in the future," then yes, the parent company would be committing fraud by closing down that portion of the business.
If you bought, then the limitations of DRM were also a part of the purchase, and should have been factored into the purchase decision. No one has suggested that by discontinuing the service, Yahoo has in any way broken their side of the contract by discontinuing the service. So, yes, you do still have exactly what you paid for.
"...a white cat-stroking schemer bent on world domination"
Brain, is that you?
-Pinky
or even competition. I don't view them that way (I don't pay for any of them) - they're just different choices.
And to all those ignorant mods who called me a troll: Opera has been around in fairly significant numbers since about 2000. Even if it had minimal market share, that is the timeframe in which it became noticed by the web cognoscenti. Firefox came out around the end of 2004 (pre-Mozilla came out around the end of 2002).
At the time Mozilla/Firefox was being formed, IE was pretty static, with no significant feature development occurring (IE6 in 2001, IE7 not until 2006). IE certainly wasn't driving feature development in other browsers. Safari didn't even exist in public until 2003.
In addition to the obvious tabbed browsing (no, they didn't invent tabs, but they did popularize them in browsers), Opera has also set the bar for standards support and rendering speed.
Specifically with reference to the article and Mozilla/Firefox, the three most significant UI features of Mozilla/Firefox, tabbed browsing, easy inline find, and custom shortcuts, all appeared in Opera previously.
Yes, Opera has been a significant factor in driving feature development in other browsers, and it deserves that recognition and respect, even if you choose to use something else.
is that Firefox has been driven (to a large extent) by Opera.
Credit where credit is due, please.
what a free market is about.
Don't buy it if you don't want it. Simple as that. This is a "want," not a "need."
Productivity doesn't require "a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror". Nor does it require a trip to some insulated "front line" to market PR for some war which has nothing to do with national defense.
If someone in the military isn't tough enough to fly a troop transport, they don't belong there in the first place.
and since a program's sole ultimate purpose is to "be run," and it must be in RAM to do so, it's a severe indictment of the judicial system that putting a (legitimate copy) of a program into RAM isn't a very simple case of "fair use."
In point of fact, as far as copyright, it is the only use.
Others can't compete with telcos, which have subsidized rights-of-way. At least the citizens involved ostensibly have a say in how much of their tax dollar goes to subsidizing the services they receive.
judge says it's not a natural monopoly, and tells the telco's they have to negotiate right-of-way wherever they have lines (new or existing). Additionally, there is no public benefit to restricting municipalities from competing with the consent of their citizens, so the telcos can go suck on a rock.
you've obviously never heard of sewer networks.
Once again, some ass make the argument that just because funds are misspent one something, it provides justification for misspending somewhere else.
We obviously overspent on your "knowledge", fool.
Well, a Nobel prize is useful for the cash it provides to the winner, but the question certainly meant what useful things has it produced for the world at large? Did knowledge of some light-years-distant binary solve world hunger, and no one was told about it?
Oh, like I want to know that I'm going to die next week. Really, knowing about some global catastrophic event in advance would probably just cause massive panic and unrest before we all die. What good is that? Where's the return?
...that because we spend alot of money poorly, we should spend more money poorly?
I disagree - instead of writing Congress, those who want Aricibo funded should donate money directly, instead of trying to use the power of government to force everyone else to pay through taxes.
In exchange for getting to use public right-of-way without cost.
If they get to selectively choose who they serve, let them negotiate land rights across all the private property, everywhere they go.
You don't know how to sign you name?
500 sets.