Although it may be legal to create a DVD player that can be programed to skip sections, that doesn't mean that the industry has to license CSS to a maker who wants to do this in the future.
Under the new proposed HD DVD standard, any player manufacturer's key can be rescinded for future HD DVD releases, so DRM may prevent the ability to enable would-be bowdlerizers from implementing their schemes.
Yes, the parent admits to not being a nationally ranked fencer and does know that fencing can be painfull (especialy saber).
And, yes, there are no "real" sword fights being fought, that I know of. Yet, there is little point to fencing if it has no relation to swordplay. I suppose it could be said that it stands on its own, but I find that an unsatisfying way of looking at fencing. Today, there is a Renaissance in the study of ancient fencing, and it is no longer the sole perview of Olympic style fencers and SCA/LARP players. There is room for more than one kind of fencing.
While foil, saber and epee are not designed to be exact analogs of real duels, their original rules were designed to make them as similar as a gentlemen's game would permit. Today, high performance fencers are very skilled at the game of fencing, but it does not resemble the sport of old. I think I'm entitled to my nostalgia and to my desire to look to technology to help add some new twists to an ancient sport.
Would it be so difficult and expensive to implement a weighted scoring system? It might be, but that doesn't mean that we should give up on the idea. A better scoring system may be just an innovation away. In the best spirit of invention, I choose to ignore those who say "Don't even bother."
Your post has some valid points, but that doesn't mean that new technology has no place in fencing or that fencing can't be taken a little closer to its roots. Whether such ideas will work out can't be known unless someone tries new ideas.
Re:This would be great for fencing.
on
Games That Shoot Back
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
[Please skip this if you are not interested rather than modding it down.]
"As a fellow fencer, you are an *idiot*."
Well, actually I'm not, but thanks for the Ad Hominem. There is a difference between thinking my idea is stupid and saying I'm stupid. I'm all for disagreement. It is through "argument" that we can hash out our ideas and see if they have some value.
Are shock belts a realistic idea for Olympic fencing? I'd say not, even though I proposed the idea. I still think it is a fun idea even if not practical.
Without getting too far off the technology aspect, I think that anybody who has watched Olympic fencing on television knows that it is, well, unwatchable. The action is too fast for ordinary television cameras and their version of slo-mo to capture. The network didn't see fit to assign any of its hi-speed cameras to cover the action.
As with all games, players have to play as close to the edge of the rules as possible to try and win. The rules in fencing that permit silly whip around light touches to count are the primary reason that the game of fencing has gotten so far away from the art of fencing. The rules need adjustment
Technology can help with fencing, too. Technology could be used to make different areas of the target count more. Technology could also be used to discourage stupid sacrifices, such as lunging for someone's foot knowing you will be hit on the head a split second later. While the shock belt is an extreme example--especially since there is no way to calibrate it to affect different people equally--there are other ways to have some interesting interactions. One would be to have the retractible cable attached fencers (the one used for electric scoring) retract a few feet when a fencer is hit and take the fencer with it--like the ratchet pulls used in stunt work to retract a stunt man who has been "shot".
Yes, my suggestions are a bit on the extreme side and not really practical for wide use. But for a few people who want to make fencing more interesting, they could be done. It is hardware hacking for fencers...
Maybe a shock belt could be used to improve the increasingly unrealistic sport of Olympic fencing.
While fencing is not a video game, it lacks a certain realism in the sense that there is not a significant enough penalty for getting hit. In epee' fencers learn to do many very silly attacks that put their face in danger so that they can attempt a toe shot.
By attaching a shock belt to the electronic scoring equipment that is already used, fencers would learn to use the kind of caution that they might in a real duel.
Of course that doesn't solve the problem of sacrifice that is encouraged by making all of the target area worth the same number of points, or the unrealistic use of the coupe--where a fencer often whips his foil into a "J" shape to touch his opponent on the back. But the shock belt may be a step in the right direction along with some other changes.
The only reason that states like Texas and California are looking into changing the road taxes from a percentage of gas sales to RFID information on miles driven is to give a break to drivers of gas hogs.
The state governments say that hybrid cars are going to cause gas tax revenues to go down, but the fact is that the national average gas efficiency is still getting worse than it was 20 years ago because of the overwhelming numbers of SUVs and trucks sold every year.
People who buy gas hogs increase our reliance on foreign oil and deserve to pay more for gas and for gas taxes as a way to discourage waste. We shouldn't all have to submit to government monitoring of our driving just to let Hum Vee owners get a tax break.
It is entirely possible that SCO's use of Groklaw's PDFs is an FU to Groklaw.
Groklaw is arguing that open-source Linux can't be copyright by SCO for a wide range of reasons. SCO knows that you can't copyright a scan of a public domain document like a legal document, so SCO puts Groklaw in the awkward position of complaining that SCO has "stolen" their property.
To be sure, SCO is a hypocritical, scummy company based on usurping the IP of other, more generous people, but they are showing that they have a sense of humor, albeit an evil one.
"Way to miss the point (hint: humor) and try to drag everyone into a politcal debate on GW bashing."
No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.
Falsehoods and Urban Legends spread because individuals don't take the responsibility of double checking information before repeating it. Calling attention to the false premise of your joke is a first step in stopping the propagation of a falsehood. It is a small step, but even the longest journey starts with a single step.
As for GW Bashing, it is relevant because spreading the claim that Al Gore was a serial "exaggerator" was part of the Republican talking points in the 2000 election. The falsehood that Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet was a popular refrain from Bush supporters. Now it is relevant to point out the immense irony of claiming that in a contest between Bush and Gore, Gore was the liar.
Given revelations about what the Bush administration knew about the claimed purchases of metal tubes and the yellow cake by Iraq, that Bush would seem to be the serial exaggerator, if not outright bald-faced liar.
"This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore."
Al Gore never claimed to have created the internet. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet."
I suppose some people might think that he meant that he actually "created" the internet, but those with a working cerebral cortex realize he was talking about supporting the programs and initiatives that made the internet possible.
Even if he had claimed to have "created the internet," it is a lot better than than if he had claimed that a country had WMDs and started a war over it.
"Yeah, but "Digital Restrictions Management" maintains the same acronym, which can be important (I thought you'd made a typo at first when you wrote "DRR")"
And that is why it doesn't work, people see the same old three letters and think of the same misleading term that has the word "management" in it.
The key to Digital Rights Restriction technology is that it Restricts Rights you have to use your Digital media. DRR doesn't let you manage anything, so the word "management" isn't an accurate way to describe how content restrictions work from a consumer perspective.
"DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. That's what everyone who implements it calls it"
And before that, it was called "Copy Protection." The language we use to discuss the issue of content control frames the discussion. There is no reason to let the content industry frame the issue with the misleading term "management" just because it works for them. The Orwell inspired name for Microsoft's total system lockdown, "Trusted Computing" is a fine example--and it is the one that Stallman is calling into question with the counter term "Treacherous Computing". Tomorrow the industry may try to say their Rights Restriction technology is Consumer Media Choice technology, and we shouldn't let them get away with that, either.
However, in the case of content control systems Digital Rights Restriction more accurately describe the technology from a consumer perspective. This technology doesn't let consumers manage anything, it manages them by restricting their rights to use their digital media.
"Your songs will live and die on that iPod like a caged animal and your investment will forever be tied to Apple's largesse--and the life-span of your iPod.
I disagree. Just get this [hymn-project.org]."
That will only work until Apple manages to fix their FairPlay Digital Rights Restriction, which could be tomorrow.
In the mean time, Rights Restricted music on your iPod is like a Bonsai Cat, the only way you can rescue it from a horrible existence is to break it out.
"Well, actually that's the doctrine of first sale. This doctrine prevents a copyright holder or vendor (such as Apple) from filing a claim against you for re-selling an item, but it doesn't say that the original seller (Apple, in this case) has to make it easy or possible for you to do so. They just cannot forbid you from doing so."
Indeed that is one the problems with Digital Rights Restriction, and the DCMA. The DCMA allows companies to Rights Restrict copyrighted works in perpetuity, granting them an illegal end run around the constitutional limits of copyright terms.
In the mean time, it is important that traditional copyrights activists use the correct terminology to describe this restriction on consumer rights, Digital Rights Restriction.
Until we are able to discuss content control systems by an accurate name, we will never be able to have an honest discussion of the issues involved.
"The iPod is my playback device of choice. I buy songs that work with it. I don't go to Real or Napster, buy music, and then try to work around their DRM to strip it and make it compatible with my iPod."
Why not? Today, the iPod may be your device of choice, but what if, tomorrow, a company comes out with a much, much better device. Will you still be happy? You won't if you bought Rights Restricted songs from Apple. Your songs will live and die on that iPod like a caged animal and your investment will forever be tied to Apple's largesse--and the life-span of your iPod. Your argument is like a person in a locked room saying he chooses to stay in the room of his own free will, not realizing that he can't open the door should he ever decide to leave.
The term "Digital Rights Management" is a misnomer. It doesn't let you, the consumer, manage anything. The proper term is Digital Rights Restriction because the technology restricts the ways you are allowed to use your music in ways that copyright law does not allow rights holders to restrict you. You are legally allowed to resell copyrighted material, including digital media like CDs and DVDs. DRR prevents you from exercising your legal rights.
"Back when Apple introduced their iTunes Music Store, they offered something unique: one could buy a song for 99 cents no subscription, unlimited CD burns."
Apple's Terms of Serivice say they don't even "sell" songs, instead you are offered the chance to pay for a license to use the song. --And as for that great deal for $.99, well Apple has used it's ironically named "FairPlay" Digital Rights Restriction system to continually erode the value of your purchase by taking away the rights they promised you when you bought it. They reduced the number of times you can burn a playlist from 10 to 7, they shrunk the network you can share music on, and now they have reduced the number of listeners from 5 simultaneous listeners to 5 daily listeners. Tomorrow, who knows, maybe you'll only be allowed to listen to a song a certain number of times per day. The DRR allows Apple to control your purchase, even after you have bought it. That is just plain wrong.
Back in 1984, Apple leveraged the imagery of "1984" in an ad featuring a Hammer thrower taking on Big Brother. Now Apple has lost that sense of perspective. They are part of the establishment now.
"If you don't like the restrictions set on the songs, then don't pay $0.99 to buy it through the iTMS. Buy it or download it somewhere else..."
In the long run, that is a false option. More and more CDs are copy protected and eventually there will be no more cds made, just as they no longer make LPs. Both the content industry and electronics companies have a vested interest in restricting you from exercising your legal rights under copyright law.
Digital Rights Restriction, such as Apple's ironically named "FairPlay," prevent consumers from exercising their right to copy their music to playback the device of their choice.
Consumers have a number of legal rights that DRR'd music prevents them from exercising, including the right to re-sell their used music. The Doctrine of First Purchase says that you can re-sell copyrighted material without needing permission from the rights holder. This is why used bookstores are legal. And this right to resell still applies to music and digital files, hence the reason that used CD stores are legal.
Consumers have a legal right to re-sell their downloaded music, too, but Apple and other vendors of Digital Rights Restricted music make it technically impossible for consumers to exercise their legal rights under copyright law.
So, it isn't a matter of "Just by a CD or get your music 'somwhere else' and shut up." Fighting the indiscriminate appropriation of consumers legal rights by companies use Digital Rights Restriction technology is an important moral and legal issue
"We are determined to find people who illegally distribute music, whichever peer-to-peer network they use, and to make them compensate the artists and labels they are stealing from."
Really? I'd love to see how the settlement checks are disbursed to music composers. I'm sure that the audit determines exactly which songs were downloaded and then settlements are sent to the artists on a proportionate basis! Er, or suppose it is just possible all the money goes to the lawyers and the recording industry--Nah, that couldn't be the case...
Judging from your post, I know you'll be happy to overlook this glaring incongruity - and seeming change of story - to fuel your belief that we live in a police state.
You are right in thinking that I still think that Gilmore has a case. Which account is right. I don't know, and either way there is still a secret law requiring us to "show our papers" to travel within the US.
Interestingly, I see that you can't challenge a single one of my assertions about the current state of the police powers in the United States: "We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact. The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no. There is literally nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says the Bill of Rights only applies to those the President approves of. This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
Your straw argument that if some things should be secret then it is ok to have secret laws (like those in Communist China and Soviet Russia) rings hollow. Yes, some things should be secret, such as the details on how to make weapons of mass destruction, but the actual laws we have to follow day to day need to be public so we can know what they are and challenge them if they are unconstitutional.
We do live in 1984. The government can do sneak and peak searches, warrantless secret searches of your medical records, credit card transactions, library records and any "public" record. They can also, without a warrant, record who you phone and when, and many other transactions. The Administration to increase pollution is called Clear Skies; their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative. All I can say is that I think the President is double plus un-good.
You need to RTFA at http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05058/462446.stm:
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day.
"He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,'" Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.'"
So, actually he wasn't allowed on the plane. There is a "Secret ID" law--so secret the government at first wouldn't even awknolge if it did or did not exist. Even today, the government won't cite the secret rule that allegedly requires people to show ID, saying that it is secret and can't be revealed without harming security.
It's official. We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments. It sounds too bad to be true, but each allegation I've listed is documented and verifiable.
Eminent Domain only refers to land, and even then only for the government to use
Not so. Eminent Domain can also be invoked merely to increase the tax base! There is a Supreme Court Decision coming soon on the extent to which a local governament can take private property and give it to another private entitiy for the public good, but the principle is already approved by the Supreme Court from an earlier decision.
Yep, films like Titanic and Lord of the Rings were real risky productions.
Lord of the Rings was a massive risk. They had a relatively unknown director (in the US, anyway) shoot all three films upfront on a massive scale. The studio took a huge chance. The Tolken fans and the general public could have hated the first film and left the studio holding the bag for the second and third films.
While, indeed there are many legal aspects of contract law am rather vague on, I do know that you don't have to have a consideration to have a binding agreement. For instance, a letter of agreement.
In addition, other laws besides contract law apply to promises made by companies, including State and FTC regulations, Fair Trade Laws, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it may be legal to create a DVD player that can be programed to skip sections, that doesn't mean that the industry has to license CSS to a maker who wants to do this in the future.
Under the new proposed HD DVD standard, any player manufacturer's key can be rescinded for future HD DVD releases, so DRM may prevent the ability to enable would-be bowdlerizers from implementing their schemes.
Yes, the parent admits to not being a nationally ranked fencer and does know that fencing can be painfull (especialy saber).
And, yes, there are no "real" sword fights being fought, that I know of. Yet, there is little point to fencing if it has no relation to swordplay. I suppose it could be said that it stands on its own, but I find that an unsatisfying way of looking at fencing. Today, there is a Renaissance in the study of ancient fencing, and it is no longer the sole perview of Olympic style fencers and SCA/LARP players. There is room for more than one kind of fencing.
While foil, saber and epee are not designed to be exact analogs of real duels, their original rules were designed to make them as similar as a gentlemen's game would permit. Today, high performance fencers are very skilled at the game of fencing, but it does not resemble the sport of old. I think I'm entitled to my nostalgia and to my desire to look to technology to help add some new twists to an ancient sport.
Would it be so difficult and expensive to implement a weighted scoring system? It might be, but that doesn't mean that we should give up on the idea. A better scoring system may be just an innovation away. In the best spirit of invention, I choose to ignore those who say "Don't even bother."
Your post has some valid points, but that doesn't mean that new technology has no place in fencing or that fencing can't be taken a little closer to its roots. Whether such ideas will work out can't be known unless someone tries new ideas.
"As a fellow fencer, you are an *idiot*."
Well, actually I'm not, but thanks for the Ad Hominem. There is a difference between thinking my idea is stupid and saying I'm stupid. I'm all for disagreement. It is through "argument" that we can hash out our ideas and see if they have some value.
Are shock belts a realistic idea for Olympic fencing? I'd say not, even though I proposed the idea. I still think it is a fun idea even if not practical.
Without getting too far off the technology aspect, I think that anybody who has watched Olympic fencing on television knows that it is, well, unwatchable. The action is too fast for ordinary television cameras and their version of slo-mo to capture. The network didn't see fit to assign any of its hi-speed cameras to cover the action.
As with all games, players have to play as close to the edge of the rules as possible to try and win. The rules in fencing that permit silly whip around light touches to count are the primary reason that the game of fencing has gotten so far away from the art of fencing. The rules need adjustment
Technology can help with fencing, too. Technology could be used to make different areas of the target count more. Technology could also be used to discourage stupid sacrifices, such as lunging for someone's foot knowing you will be hit on the head a split second later. While the shock belt is an extreme example--especially since there is no way to calibrate it to affect different people equally--there are other ways to have some interesting interactions. One would be to have the retractible cable attached fencers (the one used for electric scoring) retract a few feet when a fencer is hit and take the fencer with it--like the ratchet pulls used in stunt work to retract a stunt man who has been "shot".
Yes, my suggestions are a bit on the extreme side and not really practical for wide use. But for a few people who want to make fencing more interesting, they could be done. It is hardware hacking for fencers...
My geeky $.02:
Maybe a shock belt could be used to improve the increasingly unrealistic sport of Olympic fencing.
While fencing is not a video game, it lacks a certain realism in the sense that there is not a significant enough penalty for getting hit. In epee' fencers learn to do many very silly attacks that put their face in danger so that they can attempt a toe shot.
By attaching a shock belt to the electronic scoring equipment that is already used, fencers would learn to use the kind of caution that they might in a real duel.
Of course that doesn't solve the problem of sacrifice that is encouraged by making all of the target area worth the same number of points, or the unrealistic use of the coupe--where a fencer often whips his foil into a "J" shape to touch his opponent on the back. But the shock belt may be a step in the right direction along with some other changes.
The only reason that states like Texas and California are looking into changing the road taxes from a percentage of gas sales to RFID information on miles driven is to give a break to drivers of gas hogs.
The state governments say that hybrid cars are going to cause gas tax revenues to go down, but the fact is that the national average gas efficiency is still getting worse than it was 20 years ago because of the overwhelming numbers of SUVs and trucks sold every year.
People who buy gas hogs increase our reliance on foreign oil and deserve to pay more for gas and for gas taxes as a way to discourage waste. We shouldn't all have to submit to government monitoring of our driving just to let Hum Vee owners get a tax break.
It is entirely possible that SCO's use of Groklaw's PDFs is an FU to Groklaw.
Groklaw is arguing that open-source Linux can't be copyright by SCO for a wide range of reasons. SCO knows that you can't copyright a scan of a public domain document like a legal document, so SCO puts Groklaw in the awkward position of complaining that SCO has "stolen" their property.
To be sure, SCO is a hypocritical, scummy company based on usurping the IP of other, more generous people, but they are showing that they have a sense of humor, albeit an evil one.
"Way to miss the point (hint: humor) and try to drag everyone into a politcal debate on GW bashing."
No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.
Falsehoods and Urban Legends spread because individuals don't take the responsibility of double checking information before repeating it. Calling attention to the false premise of your joke is a first step in stopping the propagation of a falsehood. It is a small step, but even the longest journey starts with a single step.
As for GW Bashing, it is relevant because spreading the claim that Al Gore was a serial "exaggerator" was part of the Republican talking points in the 2000 election. The falsehood that Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet was a popular refrain from Bush supporters. Now it is relevant to point out the immense irony of claiming that in a contest between Bush and Gore, Gore was the liar.
Given revelations about what the Bush administration knew about the claimed purchases of metal tubes and the yellow cake by Iraq, that Bush would seem to be the serial exaggerator, if not outright bald-faced liar.
"This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore."
Al Gore never claimed to have created the internet. He said, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet."
I suppose some people might think that he meant that he actually "created" the internet, but those with a working cerebral cortex realize he was talking about supporting the programs and initiatives that made the internet possible.
Even if he had claimed to have "created the internet," it is a lot better than than if he had claimed that a country had WMDs and started a war over it.
"Yeah, but "Digital Restrictions Management" maintains the same acronym, which can be important (I thought you'd made a typo at first when you wrote "DRR")"
And that is why it doesn't work, people see the same old three letters and think of the same misleading term that has the word "management" in it.
The key to Digital Rights Restriction technology is that it Restricts Rights you have to use your Digital media. DRR doesn't let you manage anything, so the word "management" isn't an accurate way to describe how content restrictions work from a consumer perspective.
"DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. That's what everyone who implements it calls it"
And before that, it was called "Copy Protection." The language we use to discuss the issue of content control frames the discussion. There is no reason to let the content industry frame the issue with the misleading term "management" just because it works for them. The Orwell inspired name for Microsoft's total system lockdown, "Trusted Computing" is a fine example--and it is the one that Stallman is calling into question with the counter term "Treacherous Computing". Tomorrow the industry may try to say their Rights Restriction technology is Consumer Media Choice technology, and we shouldn't let them get away with that, either.
However, in the case of content control systems Digital Rights Restriction more accurately describe the technology from a consumer perspective. This technology doesn't let consumers manage anything, it manages them by restricting their rights to use their digital media.
"Your songs will live and die on that iPod like a caged animal and your investment will forever be tied to Apple's largesse--and the life-span of your iPod.
I disagree. Just get this [hymn-project.org]."
That will only work until Apple manages to fix their FairPlay Digital Rights Restriction, which could be tomorrow.
In the mean time, Rights Restricted music on your iPod is like a Bonsai Cat, the only way you can rescue it from a horrible existence is to break it out.
You do make an important point. Actually, I was aware that specialty LPs are still pressed. However, for general music they are not an option.
"Well, actually that's the doctrine of first sale. This doctrine prevents a copyright holder or vendor (such as Apple) from filing a claim against you for re-selling an item, but it doesn't say that the original seller (Apple, in this case) has to make it easy or possible for you to do so. They just cannot forbid you from doing so."
Indeed that is one the problems with Digital Rights Restriction, and the DCMA. The DCMA allows companies to Rights Restrict copyrighted works in perpetuity, granting them an illegal end run around the constitutional limits of copyright terms.
In the mean time, it is important that traditional copyrights activists use the correct terminology to describe this restriction on consumer rights, Digital Rights Restriction.
Until we are able to discuss content control systems by an accurate name, we will never be able to have an honest discussion of the issues involved.
"The iPod is my playback device of choice. I buy songs that work with it. I don't go to Real or Napster, buy music, and then try to work around their DRM to strip it and make it compatible with my iPod."
Why not? Today, the iPod may be your device of choice, but what if, tomorrow, a company comes out with a much, much better device. Will you still be happy? You won't if you bought Rights Restricted songs from Apple. Your songs will live and die on that iPod like a caged animal and your investment will forever be tied to Apple's largesse--and the life-span of your iPod. Your argument is like a person in a locked room saying he chooses to stay in the room of his own free will, not realizing that he can't open the door should he ever decide to leave.
The term "Digital Rights Management" is a misnomer. It doesn't let you, the consumer, manage anything. The proper term is Digital Rights Restriction because the technology restricts the ways you are allowed to use your music in ways that copyright law does not allow rights holders to restrict you. You are legally allowed to resell copyrighted material, including digital media like CDs and DVDs. DRR prevents you from exercising your legal rights.
"Back when Apple introduced their iTunes Music Store, they offered something unique: one could buy a song for 99 cents no subscription, unlimited CD burns."
Apple's Terms of Serivice say they don't even "sell" songs, instead you are offered the chance to pay for a license to use the song. --And as for that great deal for $.99, well Apple has used it's ironically named "FairPlay" Digital Rights Restriction system to continually erode the value of your purchase by taking away the rights they promised you when you bought it. They reduced the number of times you can burn a playlist from 10 to 7, they shrunk the network you can share music on, and now they have reduced the number of listeners from 5 simultaneous listeners to 5 daily listeners. Tomorrow, who knows, maybe you'll only be allowed to listen to a song a certain number of times per day. The DRR allows Apple to control your purchase, even after you have bought it. That is just plain wrong.
Back in 1984, Apple leveraged the imagery of "1984" in an ad featuring a Hammer thrower taking on Big Brother. Now Apple has lost that sense of perspective. They are part of the establishment now.
"If you don't like the restrictions set on the songs, then don't pay $0.99 to buy it through the iTMS. Buy it or download it somewhere else..."
In the long run, that is a false option. More and more CDs are copy protected and eventually there will be no more cds made, just as they no longer make LPs. Both the content industry and electronics companies have a vested interest in restricting you from exercising your legal rights under copyright law.
Digital Rights Restriction, such as Apple's ironically named "FairPlay," prevent consumers from exercising their right to copy their music to playback the device of their choice.
Consumers have a number of legal rights that DRR'd music prevents them from exercising, including the right to re-sell their used music. The Doctrine of First Purchase says that you can re-sell copyrighted material without needing permission from the rights holder. This is why used bookstores are legal. And this right to resell still applies to music and digital files, hence the reason that used CD stores are legal.
Consumers have a legal right to re-sell their downloaded music, too, but Apple and other vendors of Digital Rights Restricted music make it technically impossible for consumers to exercise their legal rights under copyright law.
So, it isn't a matter of "Just by a CD or get your music 'somwhere else' and shut up." Fighting the indiscriminate appropriation of consumers legal rights by companies use Digital Rights Restriction technology is an important moral and legal issue
Web Enabled is a misnomer. The so-called "Web" ATMs just use an HTML layer for layout. The actual transaction is communicated through another layer.
Really? I'd love to see how the settlement checks are disbursed to music composers. I'm sure that the audit determines exactly which songs were downloaded and then settlements are sent to the artists on a proportionate basis! Er, or suppose it is just possible all the money goes to the lawyers and the recording industry--Nah, that couldn't be the case...
You are right in thinking that I still think that Gilmore has a case. Which account is right. I don't know, and either way there is still a secret law requiring us to "show our papers" to travel within the US.
Interestingly, I see that you can't challenge a single one of my assertions about the current state of the police powers in the United States: "We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments." My position stands unopposed by you with a single fact. The facts also include the fact that the President of the United States believes that the constitution is null and void for anyone he personally deems to be an "Enemy Combatant," US Citizen or no. There is literally nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says the Bill of Rights only applies to those the President approves of. This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.
Your straw argument that if some things should be secret then it is ok to have secret laws (like those in Communist China and Soviet Russia) rings hollow. Yes, some things should be secret, such as the details on how to make weapons of mass destruction, but the actual laws we have to follow day to day need to be public so we can know what they are and challenge them if they are unconstitutional.
We do live in 1984. The government can do sneak and peak searches, warrantless secret searches of your medical records, credit card transactions, library records and any "public" record. They can also, without a warrant, record who you phone and when, and many other transactions. The Administration to increase pollution is called Clear Skies; their plan to deforest is called The Healthy Forests Initiative. All I can say is that I think the President is double plus un-good.
He is suing. But the law takes a long time for his suit to wind its way to the Supreme Court.
As Gilmore headed up the boarding ramp a security guard yanked him from line. According to court papers, a security agent named Reggie Wauls informed Gilmore he would not be flying that day. "He said, 'I didn't let you fly because you said you had an ID and wouldn't show it,'" Gilmore said. "I asked, 'Does that mean if I'd left it at home I'd be on the plane?' He said, 'I didn't say that.'"
So, actually he wasn't allowed on the plane. There is a "Secret ID" law--so secret the government at first wouldn't even awknolge if it did or did not exist. Even today, the government won't cite the secret rule that allegedly requires people to show ID, saying that it is secret and can't be revealed without harming security.
It's official. We now live in a police state, with secret searches, secret evidence, secret arrests, secret detentions without charges, secret touture, secret laws and even secret legal arguments. It sounds too bad to be true, but each allegation I've listed is documented and verifiable.
Not so. Eminent Domain can also be invoked merely to increase the tax base! There is a Supreme Court Decision coming soon on the extent to which a local governament can take private property and give it to another private entitiy for the public good, but the principle is already approved by the Supreme Court from an earlier decision.
Lord of the Rings was a massive risk. They had a relatively unknown director (in the US, anyway) shoot all three films upfront on a massive scale. The studio took a huge chance. The Tolken fans and the general public could have hated the first film and left the studio holding the bag for the second and third films.
In addition, other laws besides contract law apply to promises made by companies, including State and FTC regulations, Fair Trade Laws, etc.
Boy, I sure wouldn't want to work for you.
A promise is contract. It is legally binding. A promise can be oral or written. A written contract just provides proof of the contract.