I mean, you have DirectX and OpenGL as competing APIs and one of them gets vertex shaders, but then the other isn't allowed to. That'd just be retarded (again, even if my analogy is inaccurate, the point remains).
I like it.. "This is how it is, and even if its not, I'm still right."
With SP2, they are adding a new firewall (incoming/outgoing), popup blocking in IE, a new extentions manager in IE, bluetooth support integrated, wifi support greatly improved, and a new security center. Plus, there are UI improvements to IE and the rest of Windows.
Meanwhile.. Mac is stuck with IE5.5, pushing 11 months old..
Having no value and having a value less than $50 are two different things. There's plenty of games out there that people wouldn't mind playing for free, but would never consider paying $50 for. The Sims comes to mind.
I call bullshit. We've HEARD that argument before, and nobody believes it.. let me refresh your memory.
"CDs cost too much, for just a few songs that are good. If I could pay just a little bit, for just the songs I wanted, and have them sent eletronically, I wouldn't pirate music anymore, honest!"
Nothing new here, folks. Justification is the first skill the unjust learn.
When I was 8-15 or so I pirated every game I played. My parents sure as hell wouldn't have paid for them.
This year alone I have paid nearly $200 for computer games and we are only 5 months in. I will probably carry on spending about this much for the rest of my life.
Its an interesting, but slightly skewed, perspective. Yes, pirating games may have led to you becoming an avid gamer, and you pay for your habit now.. so, GameCompanyX, that went under because of weak sales due to Piracy, helped Sony bring in more money, because their product got you started for free. Generally speaking, when drug dealers do that, they sorta expect you to come back to them for your fix, not some other guy.
Let's say its a piece of clothing that you buy. Every time you re-enter the store, they know who you are and can start tracking your purchasing habits even if you decide to pay cash for your purchases that day.
And what the hell are they gonna do when your now-dead-rest-her-soul grandma walks into the store because you're wearing the sweater she bought ya for christmas a few years ago? Is this really an issue?
And as all RMS followers know, as soon as the information is collected, whether it is illegal or not, it will find a way to get into someones hands that you don't want to know it.
don't care what their agreement says. Nobody has to "purchase rights" to "listen" to a song. If I want to listen to a song that's playing out on the street as I happen to be walking along, nobody has any right to charge me for the privilege.
Time for me to call bullshit on your bullshit calling.
say I'm playin' my music on the street, and you happen to be walking by.. do I charge you? (I might think a tip would be nice, but thats not charging). Of course not.
On the other hand, if I'm playing my music, and you walk up to me and say, "I really want to hear X!", I can sure as hell go, "Well, I wasn't going to play that today, but tell you what, give me a buck, and I'll play your song."
Unless you're suggesting that the iTMS doesn't let you control the music you want to listen to -- in that case, why aren't you just listening to some free streaming net radio?
"The point here wasn't that your toaster _should_ be able to play the video, but that it shouldn't be illegal for that toaster to do so. Exactly like it isn't illegal for win98 to be run on a Mac."
Spin that around.. make a technogical solution that flawlessly runs Windows XP on a toaster, without purchasing a licensed copy, and I betcha you'll find it'll be supprisingly illigal.
sigh. Reread my response, up near the top -- the part where I said that perhaps I used the wrong term, and asked for your help in choosing one more accurate to the situation.
That request still stands, and I offered, in order to help us sort out what would be the best term to use, the agreement that one must agree to to purchase music from the iTMS (clicking cancel backs you out of the process - this is displayed as the second screen in the process, prior to choosing an identity, or entering any payment data.
I believe, that using common sense, as I doubt either of us are trained in law, American or otherwise (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me on this point), that we can both agree that DVD Jon, has either not read, ignored, or simply broken many of the clauses in the aforementioned agreement -- so, what do we call this... oversight, of his?
By all means, allow me to help you find the interesting parts.
U.S. SALES ONLY
Purchases from the iTunes Music Store are available only in the United States and are not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use the service from outside of the available territory.
Lets not forget...
CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.
You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.
Okay. So this is what you're telling me that DVD Jon agreed to? He always struck me as being smart enough to read, so does that imply otherwise, or is it simply a matter of the nuclear genie?
Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.
DVDs state at the time of purchase that you have to have a DVD player (and usually even a DVD player of region X). All DVD players needed a license from the DVD consortium, until the DeCSS crack. What's the difference with iTMS?
Two things. You stated that DVDs state that you need a DVD player. In this case, a piece of hardware. DeCSS does not change that fact, the technological restriction as stated on the package holds true.
The second part, being that the Big Five hate the concept of digital media, and we're playing right into their hands, giving them *exactly* what they want. DVD was already fairly well established as a format, an accepted means of transfer. Digital music is NOT, and we're really fscking up its chances because we don't like the way the games being played. If you don't like how the games being played, go home. Don't ruin it for those of us that are enjoying it.
I see a blaring difference between a DVD, which does not say 'Thou shalt not', and the iTMS, which does. That, to me, is the key difference. Informed consumers, implied (or explicit) consent to the purchasing guidelines thusly set forth. ymmv, obviously.
My main fear, is that the Big Five will use this, to either show that 'digital distrubution of music is an unsound business model', or something along those lines. BEST case situation now, we come out of this with a much heavier DRM than we have now. End result, only those willing to bend the rules come out ahead -- just like it is now. Thanks, Jon. Much
I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS, but hes created a tool that lets him listen to iTMS music that has been obtained. Does that strike anyone else as odd? When was the last time you developed a tool that gave you absolutely no benefit?
DVD Jon, of obvious fame, is hailed as a hero for letting your average Joe (or Jon), go out to their local store, and buy a DVD and play it on their linux boxen, right?
I can sorta understand that, as far as I know, DVDs don't state at the time of purchase that you have to have X or Y, just that you have to have the disc. Fine.
So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?
Something that just struck me... DVD Jon isn't in the Americas, but iTMS isn't selling to those outside (maybe Canada, I'd have to check). So... what part of this equation am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
That would explain a few things...
Thats a shame. Considering that I make use of non-iMac class PowerPCs, even that low end iMac would be a wonderful addition to a classroom somewhere.
Donate the poor thing to a school. It'll get used, I'm sure of it.
The reason people are wound up about the lack of power, is because they're PC users.
We all know that a PC with these specs is pretty pathetic. They're simply not taking into account that the Mac has a 10 year USEFUL lifespan.
Riiiiight.. just like $.99 songs stopped music piracy..
C'mon, software piracy breaks the laws of Alchemy! (Nothing comes without sacrifice)
Ya mean Froogle Wireless?
Thats just not their style.
Who modded this as funny? How is ignorance funny? Wordpad. Comes with the OS, reads Word files. Oh, the horror.
This is slashdot, man.. thats a Terms of Service, not the GPL. Expect it to be ignored thusly.
I thought it was the video games that were violent!
I like it.. "This is how it is, and even if its not, I'm still right."
Meanwhile.. Mac is stuck with IE5.5, pushing 11 months old..
I call bullshit. We've HEARD that argument before, and nobody believes it.. let me refresh your memory.
"CDs cost too much, for just a few songs that are good. If I could pay just a little bit, for just the songs I wanted, and have them sent eletronically, I wouldn't pirate music anymore, honest!"
Nothing new here, folks. Justification is the first skill the unjust learn.
This year alone I have paid nearly $200 for computer games and we are only 5 months in. I will probably carry on spending about this much for the rest of my life. Its an interesting, but slightly skewed, perspective. Yes, pirating games may have led to you becoming an avid gamer, and you pay for your habit now.. so, GameCompanyX, that went under because of weak sales due to Piracy, helped Sony bring in more money, because their product got you started for free. Generally speaking, when drug dealers do that, they sorta expect you to come back to them for your fix, not some other guy.
And what the hell are they gonna do when your now-dead-rest-her-soul grandma walks into the store because you're wearing the sweater she bought ya for christmas a few years ago? Is this really an issue?
Oh, come on.. information just wants to be free!
I won't believe its Atlantis until someone finds a Stargate!
Time for me to call bullshit on your bullshit calling.
say I'm playin' my music on the street, and you happen to be walking by.. do I charge you? (I might think a tip would be nice, but thats not charging). Of course not.
On the other hand, if I'm playing my music, and you walk up to me and say, "I really want to hear X!", I can sure as hell go, "Well, I wasn't going to play that today, but tell you what, give me a buck, and I'll play your song."
Unless you're suggesting that the iTMS doesn't let you control the music you want to listen to -- in that case, why aren't you just listening to some free streaming net radio?
Spin that around.. make a technogical solution that flawlessly runs Windows XP on a toaster, without purchasing a licensed copy, and I betcha you'll find it'll be supprisingly illigal.
That request still stands, and I offered, in order to help us sort out what would be the best term to use, the agreement that one must agree to to purchase music from the iTMS (clicking cancel backs you out of the process - this is displayed as the second screen in the process, prior to choosing an identity, or entering any payment data.
I believe, that using common sense, as I doubt either of us are trained in law, American or otherwise (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me on this point), that we can both agree that DVD Jon, has either not read, ignored, or simply broken many of the clauses in the aforementioned agreement -- so, what do we call this... oversight, of his?
iTunes Terms of Sale
By all means, allow me to help you find the interesting parts.
U.S. SALES ONLY Purchases from the iTunes Music Store are available only in the United States and are not available in any other location. You agree not to use or attempt to use the service from outside of the available territory.
Lets not forget...
CONTENT USAGE RULES
Your use of the Products is conditioned upon your prior acceptance of the terms of this Agreement.
You shall be authorized to use the Product only for personal, non-commercial use.
You shall be authorized to use the Product on three Apple authorized computers.
You shall be entitled to burn and export Products solely for personal, non-commercial use.
Any burning or exporting capabilities are solely an accommodation to you and shall not constitute a grant or waiver (or other limitation or implication) of any rights of the copyright owners of any content, sound recording, underlying musical composition or artwork embodied in any Product.
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any software required for use of the Service or any of the Usage Rules.
The delivery of a Product does not transfer to you any commercial or promotional use rights in the Product.
Okay. So this is what you're telling me that DVD Jon agreed to? He always struck me as being smart enough to read, so does that imply otherwise, or is it simply a matter of the nuclear genie?
Sad, really. People here talk about Apple Apologists.. I wonder about the OSS Appologists, though.
Two things. You stated that DVDs state that you need a DVD player. In this case, a piece of hardware. DeCSS does not change that fact, the technological restriction as stated on the package holds true.
The second part, being that the Big Five hate the concept of digital media, and we're playing right into their hands, giving them *exactly* what they want. DVD was already fairly well established as a format, an accepted means of transfer. Digital music is NOT, and we're really fscking up its chances because we don't like the way the games being played. If you don't like how the games being played, go home. Don't ruin it for those of us that are enjoying it.
I see a blaring difference between a DVD, which does not say 'Thou shalt not', and the iTMS, which does. That, to me, is the key difference. Informed consumers, implied (or explicit) consent to the purchasing guidelines thusly set forth. ymmv, obviously.
My main fear, is that the Big Five will use this, to either show that 'digital distrubution of music is an unsound business model', or something along those lines. BEST case situation now, we come out of this with a much heavier DRM than we have now. End result, only those willing to bend the rules come out ahead -- just like it is now. Thanks, Jon. Much
I'm still curious, though.. DVD Jon can't legally buy from the iTMS, but hes created a tool that lets him listen to iTMS music that has been obtained. Does that strike anyone else as odd? When was the last time you developed a tool that gave you absolutely no benefit?
I can sorta understand that, as far as I know, DVDs don't state at the time of purchase that you have to have X or Y, just that you have to have the disc. Fine.
So, when you buy something from the iTMS, it STATES that you have to have X or Y. It clearly states the restrictions that you agree to. This is not a hard concept, so why is it felt that a technological solution is required to 'fix' it?
Something that just struck me... DVD Jon isn't in the Americas, but iTMS isn't selling to those outside (maybe Canada, I'd have to check). So ... what part of this equation am I missing?
Ceramic.