Apple has given us the most flexible DRM they could get from the music label, and it's pretty flexible too.
Any DRM is too much! And to hell with labels. If the labels don't supply music to Apple, then Apple should look elsewhere. There's lots out there. The labels are no longer needed to distribute music. Let them rot! So the musicians should be looking for alternatives, also. The guy with no DRM should be the one we support.
Nobody gains anything from this.
Nonsense. The artists are being aware of the alternative to bad contracts with the labels, and the rest of us get more variety of music from a much bigger variety of artists.
This crack-it-all mentality is so damn frustrating when it serves no long-term purpose.
Yes it does! It shows that maybe we are more willing to take back the control that so many want to deny us.
The professional interrogator won with about 90% accuracy...
Well sure. They didn't hook the polygraph electrodes to their balls. I'm pretty sure that a professional interrogator(Torturer might be more appropriate) will always be more likely to extract the tooth(and nails)...I mean truth from their victims.
...and didn't buy products sold in this way, then spam would be as extinct as the dinosaurs.
Man! Talk about repeating the obvious! I can't even remember how many flames I got for stating the exact, same thing. Let's see if people don't start doing it here, also.
For one thing, I'm speaking from a user's point of view. I'm uncertain by what you maen by "better laid out". The early macs had the best lay out that I've seen, to this day. Pagemaker notwithstanding. If you're merely talking about saving space, I can agree. The reason I like self contained programs is that they're less likely to screw up the system or other programs. If it gets hosed, then it's delete and re-copy, and back to work. We're always going to have to put up with non standard installers, and that's only one reason I don't like installers at all. I like everything to be in its own little space, programs here, system there. Never should the two ever meet. And of course your data should be on another volume altogether.
My mozilla suite(and most of the software I "install" for that matter) can't be removed that way beccause it's never really installed. I just copy the folder to my hard drive, just like the mac. If I don't like it, the delete key works wonders, and cleans all of it. All programs should work this way. "Install" is a hideous mess and should be banned. That would stop malware in its tracks.
People with a heroin addiction can lead perfectly normal lives...
Many people(I would venture to say up to 80% of them) with a heroin(and cocaine) addiction do lead perfectly normal lives. But that's not what we hear in the news. To most people(especially in the states), all drug addicts are non-white, passed out in the street, bums who can't keep a job. They don't want to hear that the vast majority are white, middle class, suburbanties. If they do hear it, they won't believe it.
All property law exists only because the government says so.
Ok. Then there are no inherent property rights of any kind. I think the man said something to the effect that all stable ownership comes from the society you live in. This "God given right" to property is sooo American and is such a load of bull. The hysteria over property is getting out of hand. The IP holders are engaging in a land grab. We must stop them.
Even without copyright, sourcecode doesnt magically become available when you have binaries.
So what? It will be up to me to disassemble or reverse engineer it then. Besides, without copyright, the programmer has no reason to withhold the source code. He will have been paid before or immediately after writing the program(through a pre arranged contract). And once it's released, it's there for all to enjoy.
Go read the terms and conditions of the iTMS, which are binding since you handed over payment details when you signed up to purchase music.
Like all EULA's, I chick on them as a matter of convenience, not because I actually agree to them. Just like 90% of the users out there. It's time for us to make the rules, and if they don't like it they can keep their product to themsleves. There's plenty of others wiling to fill their shoes once they are out of the way. See? That's how they play us when we ask for a raise or some time off. We need to do the same. It would help if we did it in a united fashion instead of the haphazard way it's happening now.
WE honest folk have to break DRM because people like the greedy industry insiders feel entitled to gov't granted privileges. And tell your boss to get a key generator next time.
Precisely. All this talk of piracy and such is just the distraction to hide their real intentions, and the real intention of IP law. Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, the public will fall for it(they already are). We shouldn't even try to "talk" to gov't about it. It is so dependant on the status quo. We need to convince our neighbors to vote appropriately. It would be interesting to see how the gov't would react if the major parties were voted out. I wonder if they would relenquish their office peacefully. Either way, the IP cartels should be counting their blessings of the great generosity the public has shown towards them so far, and that we could take it all back if we were ever to use our votes responsibly.
The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
If the redistribution is not for profit, then it clearly IS fair use. Once the content is released, then nobody owns it exclusively! The only way to own content is to not release it.
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations?
Always the strawman. Nowhere here or anywhere else have I seen anybody say people shouldn't be allowed to profit from their creations. Our contention is with the parasitic methods being used today. DRM and IP law is not necessary. And who gives a damn about the movie industry per se? Movies will be made. The financing will be different, and more people might access to the movie making business. I don't care if nobody makes Star Trek 8 or Teminator 6. Let them make it with models hanging from a string and puppets.
Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
Again with that load of nonsense. We will decide the method of compensation if you want our money, and if YOU don't like it, keep your content to yourself. Once you release it, it belongs to nobody... or everybody. You can't take it back. The public has been very generous in granting you exculsivity at all. And what do they get? A greedy industry that wants more and more. There is never enough for them. Well, the party's over. The gravy train has run out of track. It's time for you to get paid in the same manner that the rest of us do. We get paid when we perform work. There is no reason to give you special privileges.
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Only because the gov't says so. Copyright is not inherent!
If you don't believe in copyright, licenses, or "trade secrets", then kiss work on open source or other original work by yourself, things the GNU General Public License, and your own privacy goodbye.
Privacy is already gone. There is none. Copyright is not needed to stimulate innovation. In reality it encourages speculation and hoarding. Without copyright, we won't need GPL.
Apple is well within its rights to sell the music in the ways it sees fit on its own service.
And we're well within our rights to do with whatever we want with our purchased goods. So yes, Thank you, Jon and more power to you. The authorities need to know that we will not be denied. PERIOD!
In fact, it is a testimoney to the power of supply and demand that it is *possible* to obtain access *despite* all attempts by the State to prevent this.
In light of the potential cash flows involved, maybe the state isn't really trying to prevent it. Maybe the cash flow from other contraband is flattening out, so they need fresh blood so to speak, a new source of revenue. For the profiteers, this is fantastic. Customs doesn't have dogs that sniff out illegal info...yet. Maybe the whole purpose of this censorship is not to stop the flow of info, but to make it expensive and profitable. The information exporting coutries can set up some cartels, just like petroleum.
I'm pretty sure the Americans ARE propping up Castro. So they can keep Guantanamo. There's more money moving between Cuba and the U.S. than most of us know about. If the Americans gov't really wanted Castro out, Castro would be out. Just like they did to Manny Noriega, and Salvador Allende. And what was the deal in Grenada? The whole thing smells pretty fishy.
Re:In my land of the free...
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 1
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. 1)Tax revenues would have to be distributed to everybody, while revenues generated from penalties and bribes stay in the "right" hands and off the books. 2)Decreased law enforcement expenditures are the last thing most law enforcement departments want. Prohibition brings in lots of opportunities for featherbedding their department. The abuse of RICO laws also brings in much money. 3) See number 2. Also remember that the private prison industry does NOT lower crime. They have rooms to fill. An empty room brings in nothing, just like an empty seat on an airliner.
Many people profit nicely from all forms of prohibitions. They're not about to let go of one of the most profitable(after weapons) ones.
that free speech is now considered contraband to be bought and sold like drugs and weapons. It definitely sheds new light on we can now call the censorship industry.
I'm sorry. I forgot that Saturday is "No Jokes" day on Slashdot. Maybe if I post this next Wednesday when the article is duped, a moderator with a sense of humor will find it.
Standardization has short term advantages, but in the long term it is more important to promote technological development.
Short term? I do believe that standardization is what makes it possible for me to use a 70 year old piece of equipment on brand new fancy touch tone lines. All your audio and video standards(analog) are over 50 years old. You could even say that the railway and highway standards were developed over 2000 years ago. Hardly short term
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has given us the most flexible DRM they could get from the music label, and it's pretty flexible too.
Any DRM is too much! And to hell with labels. If the labels don't supply music to Apple, then Apple should look elsewhere. There's lots out there. The labels are no longer needed to distribute music. Let them rot! So the musicians should be looking for alternatives, also. The guy with no DRM should be the one we support.
Nobody gains anything from this.
Nonsense. The artists are being aware of the alternative to bad contracts with the labels, and the rest of us get more variety of music from a much bigger variety of artists.
This crack-it-all mentality is so damn frustrating when it serves no long-term purpose.
Yes it does! It shows that maybe we are more willing to take back the control that so many want to deny us.
The professional interrogator won with about 90% accuracy...
Well sure. They didn't hook the polygraph electrodes to their balls. I'm pretty sure that a professional interrogator(Torturer might be more appropriate) will always be more likely to extract the tooth(and nails)...I mean truth from their victims.
...and didn't buy products sold in this way, then spam would be as extinct as the dinosaurs.
Man! Talk about repeating the obvious! I can't even remember how many flames I got for stating the exact, same thing. Let's see if people don't start doing it here, also.
For one thing, I'm speaking from a user's point of view. I'm uncertain by what you maen by "better laid out". The early macs had the best lay out that I've seen, to this day. Pagemaker notwithstanding. If you're merely talking about saving space, I can agree. The reason I like self contained programs is that they're less likely to screw up the system or other programs. If it gets hosed, then it's delete and re-copy, and back to work. We're always going to have to put up with non standard installers, and that's only one reason I don't like installers at all. I like everything to be in its own little space, programs here, system there. Never should the two ever meet. And of course your data should be on another volume altogether.
My mozilla suite(and most of the software I "install" for that matter) can't be removed that way beccause it's never really installed. I just copy the folder to my hard drive, just like the mac. If I don't like it, the delete key works wonders, and cleans all of it. All programs should work this way. "Install" is a hideous mess and should be banned. That would stop malware in its tracks.
People with a heroin addiction can lead perfectly normal lives...
Many people(I would venture to say up to 80% of them) with a heroin(and cocaine) addiction do lead perfectly normal lives. But that's not what we hear in the news. To most people(especially in the states), all drug addicts are non-white, passed out in the street, bums who can't keep a job. They don't want to hear that the vast majority are white, middle class, suburbanties. If they do hear it, they won't believe it.
All property law exists only because the government says so.
Ok. Then there are no inherent property rights of any kind. I think the man said something to the effect that all stable ownership comes from the society you live in. This "God given right" to property is sooo American and is such a load of bull. The hysteria over property is getting out of hand. The IP holders are engaging in a land grab. We must stop them.
Even without copyright, sourcecode doesnt magically become available when you have binaries.
So what? It will be up to me to disassemble or reverse engineer it then. Besides, without copyright, the programmer has no reason to withhold the source code. He will have been paid before or immediately after writing the program(through a pre arranged contract). And once it's released, it's there for all to enjoy.
Go read the terms and conditions of the iTMS, which are binding since you handed over payment details when you signed up to purchase music.
Like all EULA's, I chick on them as a matter of convenience, not because I actually agree to them. Just like 90% of the users out there. It's time for us to make the rules, and if they don't like it they can keep their product to themsleves. There's plenty of others wiling to fill their shoes once they are out of the way. See? That's how they play us when we ask for a raise or some time off. We need to do the same. It would help if we did it in a united fashion instead of the haphazard way it's happening now.
This is not a subsidy. Not a tax.
That's what copyright is! DRM is there to help assure that they can collect that subsidy.
WE honest folk have to break DRM because people like the greedy industry insiders feel entitled to gov't granted privileges. And tell your boss to get a key generator next time.
Oxygen is freely available too. If it were't, someone would be charging for it...
Uh...Hate to break it to you...
Precisely. All this talk of piracy and such is just the distraction to hide their real intentions, and the real intention of IP law. Unfortunately, under the present circumstances, the public will fall for it(they already are). We shouldn't even try to "talk" to gov't about it. It is so dependant on the status quo. We need to convince our neighbors to vote appropriately. It would be interesting to see how the gov't would react if the major parties were voted out. I wonder if they would relenquish their office peacefully. Either way, the IP cartels should be counting their blessings of the great generosity the public has shown towards them so far, and that we could take it all back if we were ever to use our votes responsibly.
The Fair Use concept generally allows you to use it for your own enjoyment so long as you don't make a profit. The wholesale redistribution of that content via Peer to Peer networks should not be considered "Fair Use".
If the redistribution is not for profit, then it clearly IS fair use. Once the content is released, then nobody owns it exclusively! The only way to own content is to not release it.
So your proposal is to stop allowing people to profit from their creations?
Always the strawman. Nowhere here or anywhere else have I seen anybody say people shouldn't be allowed to profit from their creations. Our contention is with the parasitic methods being used today. DRM and IP law is not necessary. And who gives a damn about the movie industry per se? Movies will be made. The financing will be different, and more people might access to the movie making business. I don't care if nobody makes Star Trek 8 or Teminator 6. Let them make it with models hanging from a string and puppets.
Just don't extend that to "I don't like the terms you offer this non-neccessity product under, but choose to consume it anyway without compensating you".
Again with that load of nonsense. We will decide the method of compensation if you want our money, and if YOU don't like it, keep your content to yourself. Once you release it, it belongs to nobody... or everybody. You can't take it back. The public has been very generous in granting you exculsivity at all. And what do they get? A greedy industry that wants more and more. There is never enough for them. Well, the party's over. The gravy train has run out of track. It's time for you to get paid in the same manner that the rest of us do. We get paid when we perform work. There is no reason to give you special privileges.
The copyright owners own the content, period, and get to decide how it's used, by whom, and under what conditions, whether you like it or not.
Only because the gov't says so. Copyright is not inherent!
If you don't believe in copyright, licenses, or "trade secrets", then kiss work on open source or other original work by yourself, things the GNU General Public License, and your own privacy goodbye.
Privacy is already gone. There is none. Copyright is not needed to stimulate innovation. In reality it encourages speculation and hoarding. Without copyright, we won't need GPL.
Apple is well within its rights to sell the music in the ways it sees fit on its own service.
And we're well within our rights to do with whatever we want with our purchased goods. So yes, Thank you, Jon and more power to you. The authorities need to know that we will not be denied. PERIOD!
...but that's minimal compared to trolling through rpm-depends.
Beats the hell out of trolling through my grandfather's depends.
Mandrake to Acquire Conectiva
For the REALLY amnesic:
Mandrakesoft Acquires Conectiva
Hold your finger up to the needle at the ATM machine...
Oh, yeah, right. Just after some syphillus infested drug addict jammed his finger there thinking he was getting a free hit.
...so long as they are the only ones with access to it.
That's funny!
There's nothing "future" about it. It's hear now.
In fact, it is a testimoney to the power of supply and demand that it is *possible* to obtain access *despite* all attempts by the State to prevent this.
In light of the potential cash flows involved, maybe the state isn't really trying to prevent it. Maybe the cash flow from other contraband is flattening out, so they need fresh blood so to speak, a new source of revenue. For the profiteers, this is fantastic. Customs doesn't have dogs that sniff out illegal info...yet. Maybe the whole purpose of this censorship is not to stop the flow of info, but to make it expensive and profitable. The information exporting coutries can set up some cartels, just like petroleum.
I'm pretty sure the Americans ARE propping up Castro. So they can keep Guantanamo. There's more money moving between Cuba and the U.S. than most of us know about. If the Americans gov't really wanted Castro out, Castro would be out. Just like they did to Manny Noriega, and Salvador Allende. And what was the deal in Grenada? The whole thing smells pretty fishy.
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view.
1)Tax revenues would have to be distributed to everybody, while revenues generated from penalties and bribes stay in the "right" hands and off the books.
2)Decreased law enforcement expenditures are the last thing most law enforcement departments want. Prohibition brings in lots of opportunities for featherbedding their department. The abuse of RICO laws also brings in much money.
3) See number 2. Also remember that the private prison industry does NOT lower crime. They have rooms to fill. An empty room brings in nothing, just like an empty seat on an airliner.
Many people profit nicely from all forms of prohibitions. They're not about to let go of one of the most profitable(after weapons) ones.
that free speech is now considered contraband to be bought and sold like drugs and weapons. It definitely sheds new light on we can now call the censorship industry.
I'm sorry. I forgot that Saturday is "No Jokes" day on Slashdot. Maybe if I post this next Wednesday when the article is duped, a moderator with a sense of humor will find it.
I use the Layden technique. According to her, it's foolproof.
Standardization has short term advantages, but in the long term it is more important to promote technological development.
Short term? I do believe that standardization is what makes it possible for me to use a 70 year old piece of equipment on brand new fancy touch tone lines. All your audio and video standards(analog) are over 50 years old. You could even say that the railway and highway standards were developed over 2000 years ago. Hardly short term