That reminds me, I need to play through the Riddick game again with commentary turned on. (Yes, it does have an option to play with commentary after you beat the game.)
First correction: "BitTorrent can be used legally and illegally, but it is possible using the software to find films and television programmes"
No. Bittorrent is a transfer method like http or ftp. It has 0 searching capabilities. Bittorrent is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from Kazaa / Grokster / Etc.
Let me explain. Bittorrent alone is not a downloading tool. It is a downloading method. In order to distribute files by Bittorrent, a connection file is created. That connection file can be used by a Bittorrent client to download (and upload) the content file in much the same way as a URL can be used to download content. Now, to download the file, a client program is used. The client program is similar to an FTP program except that it uses the bittorrent download method rather then the ftp method.
Now, you'll note that there isn't any searching mentioned anywhere above. That's because there is NO SEARCHING in bittorent. It's a download method, NOT a p2p program. To repeat, bittorrent is a METHOD, NOT A PROGRAM.
So how do people download things with bittorrent? Similar to finding a URL through google or an indexed directory such as Tucows, there are sites that have indexes of bittorrent connection files. (i.e. http://www.filerush.com/ These sites are NOT connected in any manner to bittorent -- they are simply index sites for the bittorrent connection files.
A user can connect to one of these index sites and search that site for the connection files. However, it should be noted that the user is searching the index site and NOT some imaginary "bittorrent network" (because there is no such thing!).
Which brings us to error number 2: "But it has proved harder to shut down its successors, such as Grokster, and now BitTorrent, because they are networks that do not have a central database of illegal files."
Bittorrent CANNOT have a central database BECAUSE IT IS NOT A NETWORK. It is a TRANSFER METHOD. However, there IS a database of illegal download files. That database is... THE INDEXING SITE! Yes that is correct, there IS a central point. And music and movie (and software) conglomerates DO attempt to shut down these sites. (Remember hearing about www.suprnova.org? That's why the popular bittorent index sites are hosted in countries that do not view LINKING to copyright materials as illegal.
The reason Brian Cohen will not be sued is because he has done nothing wrong. He hasn't created a network where files are being distributed. He has only created the transfer method. The only "network" is the various indexing sites and THOSE will be targetted.
Questionable means that some people will find it wrong and others will be absolutely ok with it.
I'm not making a judgement call, just noting that to some people, copying a CD from a friend feels wrong even though as far as I can tell (IANAL!) it is perfectly legal.
Get a stereo with audio in and plug in the portable ogg player of your choice.
Seriously, I think that's your best bet.
I bought my stereo with one and although it also has the capability to play mp3 CDs, I plug in my portable player nearly as much.
Still working on it? Yup, and a long way to go.
on
Napster's Learning Curve
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Let's see -- I can:
1) Buy music from itunes. It will be in a format that only Apple players can play, will have digital restrictions, and will be at lower bitrate then some competitors. It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 on itunes).
2) Buy music from other server. It will be in a format that can play on many players, but not on the popular Apple players. It will have digital restrictions. Quality may be greater then the Apple offering (depending on the store.) It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 online).
3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
4) Buy the music from a Russian site. Incredibly low price, selection of different bitrates. Artists probably won't be paid, but the RIAA won't either. Won't be sued by RIAA for illegally downloading. Morally not quite as "right" as other options.
5) Download the music for FREE through kazaa / etc. Quality ranges, but I will likely have to hunt for a real copy of popular songs. I risk being sued by the RIAA. Morally, one of the least "right" choices.
6) Steal the CD from a store. All the benefits of a CD without the cost. Unless you get caught. Still, you will may very well be penalized less if you get caught then if you had downloaded the song from kazaa. Morally a "wrong" choice.
7) Make a copy from a friend. Quality ranges depending on your friends original source, but it's free and may be legal under home taping laws. Morally questionable.
Of course, the RIAA isn't interested in choices. They're only interested in money and that's why this article is interesting. As far as I know it's not even a dupe! +1 intersting for Slashdot!
It's not just that -- you mentioned the testing, but didn't really flesh out the idea.
Dell (or whoever) has to make sure all components in a computer are compatible. With a Windows system, they can spread this cost among 95% of their customer base AND they probably recieve additional funding (in the form of price cuts) from Microsoft.
Meanwhile, to do the same Q&A (you may argue _______________'s computers HAVE no Q&A but that would just be name-calling for name-calling's sake) to distribute linux, they have a much smaller number of customers to pass that cost along to AND they aren't getting extra funding from anyone.
Attitudes like this are NOT going to help anything.
Addressing one specific claim: as long as law enforcement officers will act like assholes who think that civilians are an inferior life form, it is only fitting that some people would paint targets on your backs.
Fitting? No, it's NOT fitting. Fitting means that it is appropriate.
Now, it may not be surprising, but it is certainly not fitting.
I'm fairly certain that the RIAA required DRM, not proprietary file formats. (looks at all the other music stores which use DRM but in an openly licenseable format.)
If your dad could pay someone else $10 to hack his DVD player so that it could skip commercials, do you think he'd do it? What if he had a geeky son (just conjecturing of course) who did things like read slashdot and would offer to do it for him?
Just because he doesn't know how doesn't mean he wouldn't appreciate it.
A recent PC Gamer article revealing the upcoming "Prey" also mentioned that DNF is getting closer, but they're refusing to say anything concrete because.. well, because they pretty much screwed everything about DNF up so far.
I really doubt it'll be out by Christmas though as they'd be competing with their own game. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on a 2006 release, probably mid-year.
All the less popular, but good, music will be cheaper than $0.99
Are you delusional? This isn't Walmart (Taking over the world one pricecut at a time) we're talking about here. This is the "Yes, we were convicted of high-price-fixing recently" music "industry".
$0.99 for music that should have gone public domain by now. $1.99 for anything that it seems like people actually want to buy in quantity.
Well, that's how patents SHOULD work. They should be for a specific implementation that is a NEW and ORIGINAL implementation.
Then you get the $$ for figuring out whatever it is you figured out.
Sadly, there are far too many general case patents out there now-a-days and that's one of the reasons you see such a large response on may/. patent stories.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me, I need to play through the Riddick game again with commentary turned on. (Yes, it does have an option to play with commentary after you beat the game.)
Not enough people know about picasa. The ONE real gripe I have with picasa is the exporting process is far too convoluted.
Other then that, it does the job 95% of the time and does it quickly, easily, and without looking like a Fisher Price program.
The rest of the time, I generally use Paint Shop Pro. (Although that is turning into more and more of a mess.)
(copy and paste follows -- see url at top for original article), 00.html
--
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1841351
First correction: "BitTorrent can be used legally and illegally, but
it is possible using the software to find films and television
programmes"
No. Bittorrent is a transfer method like http or ftp. It has 0
searching capabilities. Bittorrent is FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from
Kazaa / Grokster / Etc.
Let me explain. Bittorrent alone is not a downloading tool. It is a
downloading method. In order to distribute files by Bittorrent, a
connection file is created. That connection file can be used by a
Bittorrent client to download (and upload) the content file in much
the same way as a URL can be used to download content. Now, to
download the file, a client program is used. The client program is
similar to an FTP program except that it uses the bittorrent download
method rather then the ftp method.
Now, you'll note that there isn't any searching mentioned anywhere
above. That's because there is NO SEARCHING in bittorent. It's a
download method, NOT a p2p program. To repeat, bittorrent is a
METHOD, NOT A PROGRAM.
So how do people download things with bittorrent? Similar to
finding a URL through google or an indexed directory such as Tucows,
there are sites that have indexes of bittorrent connection files.
(i.e. http://www.filerush.com/ These sites are NOT connected in any
manner to bittorent -- they are simply index sites for the bittorrent
connection files.
A user can connect to one of these index sites and search that site
for the connection files. However, it should be noted that the user
is searching the index site and NOT some imaginary "bittorrent
network" (because there is no such thing!).
Which brings us to error number 2:
"But it has proved harder to shut down its successors, such as
Grokster, and now BitTorrent, because they are networks that do not
have a central database of illegal files."
Bittorrent CANNOT have a central database BECAUSE IT IS NOT A
NETWORK. It is a TRANSFER METHOD. However, there IS a database of
illegal download files. That database is... THE INDEXING SITE! Yes
that is correct, there IS a central point. And music and movie (and
software) conglomerates DO attempt to shut down these sites.
(Remember hearing about www.suprnova.org? That's why the popular
bittorent index sites are hosted in countries that do not view LINKING
to copyright materials as illegal.
The reason Brian Cohen will not be sued is because he has done
nothing wrong. He hasn't created a network where files are being
distributed. He has only created the transfer method. The only
"network" is the various indexing sites and THOSE will be targetted.
Questionable means that some people will find it wrong and others will be absolutely ok with it.
I'm not making a judgement call, just noting that to some people, copying a CD from a friend feels wrong even though as far as I can tell (IANAL!) it is perfectly legal.
My JVC player supports MP3, cd changer, and has auxiliary line in on the front (and I believe one in the back should I choose to hook it up).
:)
You just aren't looking enough.
Get a stereo with audio in and plug in the portable ogg player of your choice.
Seriously, I think that's your best bet.
I bought my stereo with one and although it also has the capability to play mp3 CDs, I plug in my portable player nearly as much.
Let's see -- I can:
1) Buy music from itunes. It will be in a format that only Apple players can play, will have digital restrictions, and will be at lower bitrate then some competitors. It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 on itunes).
2) Buy music from other server. It will be in a format that can play on many players, but not on the popular Apple players. It will have digital restrictions. Quality may be greater then the Apple offering (depending on the store.) It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 online).
3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
4) Buy the music from a Russian site. Incredibly low price, selection of different bitrates. Artists probably won't be paid, but the RIAA won't either. Won't be sued by RIAA for illegally downloading. Morally not quite as "right" as other options.
5) Download the music for FREE through kazaa / etc. Quality ranges, but I will likely have to hunt for a real copy of popular songs. I risk being sued by the RIAA. Morally, one of the least "right" choices.
6) Steal the CD from a store. All the benefits of a CD without the cost. Unless you get caught. Still, you will may very well be penalized less if you get caught then if you had downloaded the song from kazaa. Morally a "wrong" choice.
7) Make a copy from a friend. Quality ranges depending on your friends original source, but it's free and may be legal under home taping laws. Morally questionable.
Of course, the RIAA isn't interested in choices. They're only interested in money and that's why this article is interesting. As far as I know it's not even a dupe! +1 intersting for Slashdot!
I use a linux java app to extract automatically the shows that I need potable
:D
You eat/drink your shows?
:D
As I said, they use DRM that is openly licenseable.
That is, Microsoft (no matter how much you hate them) is more then willing to sell you a license to use their DRM.
Apple not only won't do so, they will fight you in court (Real) if you reverse engineer their DRM in order to create a compatible DRM.
It's not just that -- you mentioned the testing, but didn't really flesh out the idea.
Dell (or whoever) has to make sure all components in a computer are compatible. With a Windows system, they can spread this cost among 95% of their customer base AND they probably recieve additional funding (in the form of price cuts) from Microsoft.
Meanwhile, to do the same Q&A (you may argue _______________'s computers HAVE no Q&A but that would just be name-calling for name-calling's sake) to distribute linux, they have a much smaller number of customers to pass that cost along to AND they aren't getting extra funding from anyone.
Introducing "impactful" -- the word.
Geez, are you stupid?
Attitudes like this are NOT going to help anything.
Addressing one specific claim:
as long as law enforcement officers will act like assholes who think that civilians are an inferior life form, it is only fitting that some people would paint targets on your backs.
Fitting? No, it's NOT fitting. Fitting means that it is appropriate.
Now, it may not be surprising, but it is certainly not fitting.
I'm fairly certain that the RIAA required DRM, not proprietary file formats. (looks at all the other music stores which use DRM but in an openly licenseable format.)
Turn Off Autoplay.
Get TweakUI from microsoft (search for "powertoys") and turn off autoplay for both data and audio cds.
Yes, you will have to start installers on CD manually.
If your dad could pay someone else $10 to hack his DVD player so that it could skip commercials, do you think he'd do it? What if he had a geeky son (just conjecturing of course) who did things like read slashdot and would offer to do it for him?
Just because he doesn't know how doesn't mean he wouldn't appreciate it.
There was at least one comment in the previous story that said "um no, this isn't true".
It was probably modded down.
That would be the reason Apple doesn't buy a license for Windows Media. That certainly doesn't explain why they won't license Fairplay to others.
To be fair, Microsoft is at least willing to license the DRM. Apple refuses to do so.
Not from Steve. There's that pesky Beatles agreement that they're barely skirting even now. No buying music companies for them.
A recent PC Gamer article revealing the upcoming "Prey" also mentioned that DNF is getting closer, but they're refusing to say anything concrete because.. well, because they pretty much screwed everything about DNF up so far.
I really doubt it'll be out by Christmas though as they'd be competing with their own game. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on a 2006 release, probably mid-year.
How about "Redundant Raid Array of Disks"?
All the less popular, but good, music will be cheaper than $0.99
Are you delusional? This isn't Walmart (Taking over the world one pricecut at a time) we're talking about here. This is the "Yes, we were convicted of high-price-fixing recently" music "industry".
$0.99 for music that should have gone public domain by now.
$1.99 for anything that it seems like people actually want to buy in quantity.
why in the world would I offer up for free my bandwidth to help a company have better distribution[?]
Because it's either start downloading now at the cost of some of your bandwidth, OR wait 3 hourse in the fileplanet queue. No, I'm serious.
I often go to Filerush.com because I know I won't have to wait in line.
Haven't they seen the new Revolution promo video?
Well, that's how patents SHOULD work. They should be for a specific implementation that is a NEW and ORIGINAL implementation.
/. patent stories.
Then you get the $$ for figuring out whatever it is you figured out.
Sadly, there are far too many general case patents out there now-a-days and that's one of the reasons you see such a large response on may