If you're referring to the concept that such applications would need to be signed in order to work, then I suppose one could perceive that as a problem. I happen to think that is a reasonable restriction.
If MS doesn't make the OS more secure, you'll be upset. If they do, but have to prevent access to certain code layers from unsigned third-party applications in order to do it, you'll be upset. So... what do you want?
Say what you want about US politics, but I haven't found a shred of evidence that the US has turned this bill into law. Your link only says that it passed through the House. I haven't found anything that says that the Senate approved it anywhere. Most likely, they didn't even take it up.
That said, there are far more consumer-hostile business-friendly laws in the US than this proposed one. The part of the recent Medicare law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies springs to mind.
You say: Naturally, other than that, it's a partial-mixed-mode CD; first session contains audio tracks with a slightly malformed TOC, and second session contains just data track, which will be autoexecuted in a dumb machine if you don't hold Shift.
TFA says: Gilliat-Smith says the discs are compliant with Sony Philips CD specifications and should therefore play in all conventional CD players.
If the first session has a "malformed" TOC, doesn't that mean it's not compliant with the Sony Philips CD spec? Or am I missing something? Or is Mr. First4Internet just flat out lying about that?
All you're going to get through this process is unencumbered AAC files, which still don't play on as many players. Sure, it's faster than burning/ripping, but I really don't see the point in breaking my contract with Apple just to save me that bit of time.
This is a much better "security" story than "DRM" story. Apple clearly blew it in the security department here.
TFA states: "It had no warnings of the content being protected or only playable in certain regions..."
Sorry, but there's a standard-sized Region 1 logo near the bottom of the box on the right, roughly where every other Region 1 DVD puts it. This would strongly indicate that it was meant for Region 1, being the US and Canada. While one could argue that one thought this only applied to the DVD version of the movie and not the DVD-ROM HD version, well, that's an OK argument, but to say it had no warnings is flat-out false.
TFA also states: "I was a bit surprised as to why I needed to install InterActual Player..."
Sorry again, but InterActual Player is, in fact, the third thing listed on the back of the box as one of the requirements.
I will agree that the DRM on this is more than a little oppressive (5 days?!), but a decent chunk of this article (having to install a 3rd-party application, anonymous proxy through US to get a license) deals with things that are unrelated to DRM.
I just got Comcast's HD PVR box, and despite its limitations (30 hr regular TV, 7 hr HDTV, only one tuner), it works as advertised. Of course, I just have regular consumer-grade equipment, not the fancy-schmancy stuff. And yeah, the regular digital cable doesn't look stunning like the HD stuff does, but it's decent enough.
It is true, though, that 3-second channel changes are a pain. The HD box I had before this one (without the PVR features) changed channels nearly instantly, so I don't know what broke. Fortunately, the menuing system is properly responsive, so I can at least see what's on without wasting time changing the channels.
If you have a netscape.net account, you can use the mail client to access it directly, rather than through the web interface. (The mail server is deliberately non-standard, so you can't use any other mail client to do that.)
Other than that, there's no reason at all to use it, as far as I can see. But since I do have one of those accounts, it works fine. And you can remove all of the AOL cruft you don't like fairly easily.
No it doesn't. In fact, that's the current legal situation, and why Napster ended up being shut down (its only technically viable use was to distribute music, of which such a large majority was copyright violation that it was deemed to be the only viable use) while Kazaa was allowed to continue running (largely due to the reasonably large number of legally distributed pron videos on the system...).
Wrong. Napster was shut down because they maintained central servers with indices of files you could download, the vast majority of which were copyrighted songs, and they refused to block access to these songs when asked by the copyright owners (remember, they would ban users, but not block access to the material). Kazaa and its ilk were allowed to continue running because there was no central server, so they had no way of knowing what their software was being used for (and no way to block copyrighted material even if asked).
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, that is. You'll have to spend a lot of money to get into that court of law, though. If you don't want DirecTV to force you into that court of law, and spend all that money, then you'll have to convince them that it isn't worth their money to do so.
That's all this means. They're going to be slightly more careful in their extortion attempts.
"Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."
This stood out to me too. Anyone else think that Brown is going to use this piece of information to say that Linus knew the process was flawed before, and that he needed to do this to clean it up? He didn't do it before Brown announced his book, so it must be direct result of that. So Linux was dirty all along. QED.
I wouldn't put it past him to try and pull this flawed logic. Let's see what happens.
Except that this case has nothing to do with the accuracy of searches. This is about the paid advertisement listings that show up on the side of the page.
As much as I think black boxes like Diebold's should be forbidden from this kind of endeavor (Hi, choir!), I have to wonder as well why San Diego County didn't have a backup plan. It boggles the mind that they would do something as important as this without having backup paper ballots.
Also, while I feel bad for the folks who are having their ability to vote without assistance taken away from them, it has to be better than having broken machines at which no voting at all can take place.
OK, I apparently can't come up with the right terms to search for on copyright.gov (or Google) to get a better description of the sort of license required for this kind of use. What exactly is this called, and where can I read about it?
But if I pay for the mechanical license to cover a song, and then cover it, why can't I license out my performance to an ad company? Isn't that how the cover versions show up in ads in the first place, because the original artists don't want to license their performances?
What you're saying is: Mechanical license is paid for eight-year-old girl to cover "Lose Yourself:" legal. Eight-year-old girl licenses performance to ad agency: illegal. How is that possible?
I adopted MD very early (still have my MZ-1!) because I hated tapes and was tired of lugging my CDs around. And for about 10 years, they were the greatest thing on wheels. I have a portable player, a car changer and a home deck. (All of these before they started with this DRM nonsense.)
And yet, I can't get excited about this. It seems obvious to me that hard drive MP3 players are the way to go. The price is much lower, the quality is nearly as good, the portability is similar, and about the only thing you can't do that you can do with MD is swap the HD out. But when you've got a 40GB HD, who cares?
I think this won't really take off. It's not like Apple where MD users will jump on this to upgrade all their gear just because it's MD. I think MD served a purpose when it came out, but I honestly think it has been supplanted by better, cheaper technology.
Just because a person with one of these cards isn't a terrorist at the time the card is issued, doesn't mean they won't become one in the future. There would have to be a way to invalidate the card, which means that these card readers would have to be updated on some semi-frequent basis. (Not to mention that when the terrorist first gets denied at the gate, he will know that the government is on to him.)
I don't know about this particular CD, but on at least some of the non-US "copy controlled" CDs I've gotten, they appear to have set the SCMS bit on the digital audio out, so they can't be copied that way either.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're referring to the concept that such applications would need to be signed in order to work, then I suppose one could perceive that as a problem. I happen to think that is a reasonable restriction.
If MS doesn't make the OS more secure, you'll be upset. If they do, but have to prevent access to certain code layers from unsigned third-party applications in order to do it, you'll be upset. So... what do you want?
And if the "whole infrastructure [is] extremely vulnerable," third-party applications will be created to shore it up.
What's the problem again?
Say what you want about US politics, but I haven't found a shred of evidence that the US has turned this bill into law. Your link only says that it passed through the House. I haven't found anything that says that the Senate approved it anywhere. Most likely, they didn't even take it up.
That said, there are far more consumer-hostile business-friendly laws in the US than this proposed one. The part of the recent Medicare law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies springs to mind.
You say: Naturally, other than that, it's a partial-mixed-mode CD; first session contains audio tracks with a slightly malformed TOC, and second session contains just data track, which will be autoexecuted in a dumb machine if you don't hold Shift.
TFA says: Gilliat-Smith says the discs are compliant with Sony Philips CD specifications and should therefore play in all conventional CD players.
If the first session has a "malformed" TOC, doesn't that mean it's not compliant with the Sony Philips CD spec? Or am I missing something? Or is Mr. First4Internet just flat out lying about that?
All you're going to get through this process is unencumbered AAC files, which still don't play on as many players. Sure, it's faster than burning/ripping, but I really don't see the point in breaking my contract with Apple just to save me that bit of time.
This is a much better "security" story than "DRM" story. Apple clearly blew it in the security department here.
One of my favorite Eurythmics songs. Very spooky.
What do you suppose it does when it finds that MP3 on your hard drive?
I knew this sounded familiar! It was called SDMI, and they gave up on it about four years ago. Why do they think it'll work now?
TFA states: "It had no warnings of the content being protected or only playable in certain regions..."
Sorry, but there's a standard-sized Region 1 logo near the bottom of the box on the right, roughly where every other Region 1 DVD puts it. This would strongly indicate that it was meant for Region 1, being the US and Canada. While one could argue that one thought this only applied to the DVD version of the movie and not the DVD-ROM HD version, well, that's an OK argument, but to say it had no warnings is flat-out false.
TFA also states: "I was a bit surprised as to why I needed to install InterActual Player..."
Sorry again, but InterActual Player is, in fact, the third thing listed on the back of the box as one of the requirements.
I will agree that the DRM on this is more than a little oppressive (5 days?!), but a decent chunk of this article (having to install a 3rd-party application, anonymous proxy through US to get a license) deals with things that are unrelated to DRM.
Actually, the song was (and still is) commercially available on a 7" single before the ad came out. And it was available on iTunes, naturally.
I just got Comcast's HD PVR box, and despite its limitations (30 hr regular TV, 7 hr HDTV, only one tuner), it works as advertised. Of course, I just have regular consumer-grade equipment, not the fancy-schmancy stuff. And yeah, the regular digital cable doesn't look stunning like the HD stuff does, but it's decent enough.
It is true, though, that 3-second channel changes are a pain. The HD box I had before this one (without the PVR features) changed channels nearly instantly, so I don't know what broke. Fortunately, the menuing system is properly responsive, so I can at least see what's on without wasting time changing the channels.
Who do you think you're fooling? Slashdot readers don't have friends.
Check out their report on Macrovision CDS-300 version 7 beta.
If you have a netscape.net account, you can use the mail client to access it directly, rather than through the web interface. (The mail server is deliberately non-standard, so you can't use any other mail client to do that.)
Other than that, there's no reason at all to use it, as far as I can see. But since I do have one of those accounts, it works fine. And you can remove all of the AOL cruft you don't like fairly easily.
No it doesn't. In fact, that's the current legal situation, and why Napster ended up being shut down (its only technically viable use was to distribute music, of which such a large majority was copyright violation that it was deemed to be the only viable use) while Kazaa was allowed to continue running (largely due to the reasonably large number of legally distributed pron videos on the system...). Wrong. Napster was shut down because they maintained central servers with indices of files you could download, the vast majority of which were copyrighted songs, and they refused to block access to these songs when asked by the copyright owners (remember, they would ban users, but not block access to the material). Kazaa and its ilk were allowed to continue running because there was no central server, so they had no way of knowing what their software was being used for (and no way to block copyrighted material even if asked).
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty. In a court of law, that is. You'll have to spend a lot of money to get into that court of law, though. If you don't want DirecTV to force you into that court of law, and spend all that money, then you'll have to convince them that it isn't worth their money to do so.
That's all this means. They're going to be slightly more careful in their extortion attempts.
"Torvalds' recent announcement that, in the future, Linux kernel contributors will have to certify the origins of their code before it can become part of the kernel."
This stood out to me too. Anyone else think that Brown is going to use this piece of information to say that Linus knew the process was flawed before, and that he needed to do this to clean it up? He didn't do it before Brown announced his book, so it must be direct result of that. So Linux was dirty all along. QED.
I wouldn't put it past him to try and pull this flawed logic. Let's see what happens.
The hard-to-navigate movie site states that the short will be on the second disc of the DVD set.
Since Citi and Amex have already been mentioned.
Except that this case has nothing to do with the accuracy of searches. This is about the paid advertisement listings that show up on the side of the page.
Also, while I feel bad for the folks who are having their ability to vote without assistance taken away from them, it has to be better than having broken machines at which no voting at all can take place.
Thanks. I like to keep up on this stuff.
What you're saying is: Mechanical license is paid for eight-year-old girl to cover "Lose Yourself:" legal. Eight-year-old girl licenses performance to ad agency: illegal. How is that possible?
I adopted MD very early (still have my MZ-1!) because I hated tapes and was tired of lugging my CDs around. And for about 10 years, they were the greatest thing on wheels. I have a portable player, a car changer and a home deck. (All of these before they started with this DRM nonsense.)
And yet, I can't get excited about this. It seems obvious to me that hard drive MP3 players are the way to go. The price is much lower, the quality is nearly as good, the portability is similar, and about the only thing you can't do that you can do with MD is swap the HD out. But when you've got a 40GB HD, who cares? I think this won't really take off. It's not like Apple where MD users will jump on this to upgrade all their gear just because it's MD. I think MD served a purpose when it came out, but I honestly think it has been supplanted by better, cheaper technology.
Just because a person with one of these cards isn't a terrorist at the time the card is issued, doesn't mean they won't become one in the future. There would have to be a way to invalidate the card, which means that these card readers would have to be updated on some semi-frequent basis. (Not to mention that when the terrorist first gets denied at the gate, he will know that the government is on to him.)
Seems pretty unworkable to me.
I don't know about this particular CD, but on at least some of the non-US "copy controlled" CDs I've gotten, they appear to have set the SCMS bit on the digital audio out, so they can't be copied that way either.