what would make you happy? seriously? your arguments are a catch-22.
everyone complains that there isn't enough choice. they are giving you tons of choices. if you don't want this stuff turn it off. problem fixed for 1/2 your rant.
hardware is getting more powerful, why not increase the functions the OS is capable of to take advantage of all that new harware. again if you don't want that. turn it off.
if you don't want to buy new hardware then you automatically won't be getting the new features you are complaining about anyway. seems like a win for you.
And "noobs" who do know just a little better will give themselves administrator accounts so that they can install software whenever they want without changing roles, completely mooting any "default user level access" security changes being made.
that is a choice you can make. choice choice choice. if they removed the ability to run the pc from an admin account there would be morons complaining that they couldn't do that if they wanted to. the point is YOU now have a better security system should you wish to employ it. what's not to like about that?
Why do we need virus software, I thought noobs couldn't get into the system and let viruses and worms loose...
is there an OS in existance that hasn't had some sort of virus/trojan written for it? to assume you are unassailable is folly. any system can be cracked given time and motivation. if they didnt' include this stuff, then eventually somethign would get released and you'd be whinning that there wasn't any anti-virus stuff for it.
they'll just turn them all on and go instead of actually learning the ins and outs of TCP security.
right. because linux is definitely more user friendly when it comes to managing your network. again what do you want them to do? they arguably have the best tools for this right now in xp. the only thing they can do is start taking away your access to these things to ensure security. then you'd whine that you didnt' have access to them.
they are doing their best to strike the balance between giving the user all the power they could want and preventing malicious people from abusing it. i'd like to hear your constructive views on what could be done better. it's not as easy a task comming up with constructive ideas than just flame everything that someone does. EVERYTHING has downsides.
i have an msdn liscense and i've been installing the beta's on my 64bit machine all along. for the most part it runs fine for me. granted i don't beat it that much since it is a beta and i don't expect it to be rock solid.
i think my biggest pet peeve is that yet again they've changed the names on everything. it's not that the tools were really all that different, and i can deal with the new interfaces. but now i have to relearn the names for everything, when basically it fulfills the same function. i find that to be the most annoying thing about all of this. i also would like an option somewhere that turns off the wizards. they can be turned on by default, as most users will prefer them. but i know what i'm doing, give me an option that defaults everything to "just show me the guts". i understand that those screens might be different, but let's skip the whole "click next to begin" nonsense.
as for the space. are you serious? i occasionally find 8gig dvd's i archived onto the harddrive forever ago and simply forgot about. you can get drives at around 500gigs now relatively cheap. 5 gigs is nothing. i would happily trade that for a system that does a better job of managing the file system and protecting needed files from unwanted change.
it's true. and say what you will, but windows just keeps getting better. with few exceptions every release of windows has brought a better, faster, more stable operating system.
a-men. it'll let me have all these cool options and take advantage of all the cool new hardware that is being released. if you don't like it i'm sure there will be an option to turn it off. since when is choice a bad thing?
i was more saying that no gaming system had ever penetrated the entire consumer market on the level that would be required to seriously sway people one way or another.
something like 80% of homes now have a dvd player? ps2's are nowhere near that. to actually influence the market they are going to have to sell more ps3's than any console has ever sold before.
If Dan Brown actually admitted that it was all fiction, he was very careful about it
it's in the fiction section. my copy says "fiction" right on the cover. how much plainer can he make it? seriously? that's why we have labels like that for books.
i honestly enjoy a book more when once i start reading i get thrown into whatever reality the author is trying to create for me. i would find the book silly if it kept throwing in things letting me know this or that wasn't real. of course it's not real, it's fiction. that's a given.
you want to hold dan brown responsible because there are people that don't know what the word fiction means? maybe you're time would be better spent explaining that word to people.
many people think aliens visit us. or that the bible they read today is an unaltered translation of the original "bible". at least this book is labeled "fiction". most reasonable people know that makes it an unauthoratative source for this material.
as for it's sources, your opinions are just that, YOUR opinions. no matter what "some say", "others say" something different. if you can't deal with dissenting opinion you need to recheck your beliefs.
As for that book, I see it as an anti-catholic conspiracy theory
what i read was a somewhat boring work of fiction. again it is labeled "fiction". i see tons of books, movies, and tv shows that i could label as anti-atheist, but i don't. your belief in something doesn't preclude mine. touched by an angel was meant to be a show that entertained. i didn't care for it myself so i switched the channel and never gave it another thought.
it's FICTION. it's for people that read, you know, for fun. i didn't find jurassic park to be anti-dinosaur or anti-cloning or anti-science. it was just a story meant to entertain me. and it did that. you are taking this way too seriously...
However, a replicator can only replicate something for which an existing pattern exists. So content must still be created.
this is 100% true. but the analogy still holds. would that change the fact that once something is created people could/would be copying it? my point is no matter how much whinning papa-johns did, people would be copying the pizza. the value is no longer in putting the physical ingredients together. there would still be a demand for new foods. but papa-johns would have to come to terms with the fact that they were no longer filling the same role. people are not going to value the bits of recipes the same they did all the work that went in to bringing the pizza to their door. you are doing less work, why should you expect to get the same amount of money?
There's no cost to breaking the law. But perhaps if it cost money to share that music with those 10,000 friends, some might revert back to "sharing" with their real friends.
the reason there is not cost is your fault. you're back at blaming everyone else for the problems but the people who caused them. this would never work because people would figure out a way to get around this as well. every attempt to artificially limit this is going to fail now. bits can be copied for free. there's nothing you can do to put that rabbit back in the hat. instead of trying to make the parts you can't control more draconian, why not concentrate on making there be an advantage to buying it?
p2p/torrent/etc is not very user-friendly, convenient, or high quality (you can get those things, but it requires lots of time spent searching around). you could compete on all those fronts. allofmp3 and iTunes proves we all prefer a well designed-intuitive interface, and are willing to pay for the content. If you would just stop giving the pirates all the competitive advantages that really matter (no drm, higher quality, any format) we would have a reason to shop with you (easier to use).
the piracy is already happening, so what do you have to lose?. today i can go online and get anything i want faster, cheaper, easier, and more convenient than i can buy it (at least legally). that is your fault. why should i agree to pay some sort of upload tax on everything i do because you can't seem to come to grips with reality? again what you are proposing is short sited and good for you, but it's not in everyone's best interest. believe it or not people upload lots of content that isn't yours.
whine and stomp and plead all you want that the replicator has now been invented. it won't change that there is no more value in putting together physical items and bringing it to my door.
Finally, do I think loaning a book or CD to a friend is fair. Yes.
by advocating drm you are clearly saying you do not. i can't lend/give my mom a copy of my iTunes mp3 or video any more. you have admitted to unilaterally taking away a right we both believe i should still have. it's in my best interest to hit up torrents and steal the content i want so i can share it with my mom. if i steal it i can get it in whatever format, whatever quality i want, for whatever devices i have that can play them. cheaper. there is absolutely no incentive to go buy it from you.
my Best Buy example
when someone steals a physical item in best buy it makes the price for everything else go up for the rest of us. it's better for all of us that the stealing stops to keep the prices lower. conversely the prices of the albums are unchanging. if anything the more popular stuff costs more to buy because more people are buying it and you respond to that. so really there is no advantage to the rest of us to stopping the piracy. it doesn't seem to affect prices one way or another (the only price drop i've seen in my lifetime came thanks to the piracy. so it is actually in our best interest to allow it.)
physical items do not equal intellectual property. any analogy that tries to claim it does is flawed. there is no replicator for real things yet. there is a replicator for content. real things carry a heavy cost of producing, the replicated things do not. why should they be treated the same?
While not a perfect analogy, the point is that the "disagreement" may not be rational,
it's not even a passable analogy. who's suggesting we shouldn't have to pay money for food? now if you invented a replicator, then you'd have people capable of making free food (nearly). what you are proposing is that could be contained which is just silly. people would start replicating food. food vendors would have to come up with new ways to compete. just selling food wouldn't be enough any more. they would have to respond to the realities of the situation, fair or not, food can be copied easily.
i'm sure papa johns and mcdonald's would go down much the same as the music industry. but they would be attempting to control something that just couldn't be controlled (like you).
...allofmp3...it's easy to sell a song for a nickel when you didn't have to produce it in the first place
that's a fair point. but compromise is not selling me a song at the same or higher price than you used to with cd's when your distribution costs have become near $0. it cannot possibly cost $.99 to bring that mp3 to market. i can get dvd's that costs hundreds of millions to make for $15-$20. sure they help off-set that with theaters, but your costs are an infintesimal in comparison to that.
you miss what people really like about allofmp3 and that's choice. you get to choose the format. you get to choose the quality. and you don't have drm restricting what you can do with it.
What middle ground?
pirating got big to start with because the labels refused to distribute their material digitally. allofmp3 and even iTunes (with it's billion plus downloads) proves people will pay for the music. they were driven to piracy because it was convenient and the way they wanted it. not because they got off stealing the music. free was just an added bonus. what i find funny is that for free people managed to build these networks and technologies. meanwhile the billion dollar industry with everything to gain did it's typical duck and cover routine (same as with vhs, casset, etc, etc...).
VHS have shown, people will not "honor" voluntary restrictions
also a good point. but then you have to ask what is enough. i understand you want to make money, but if i have a copy of a video and i want to lend it to my parents is that really that bad? with DRM that isn't even possible. sure a little "piracy" is going to occur. more importantly piracy is already occuring today and you aren't giving people any incentive to switch. you have to be a little more reasonable. i mean we have already proven we find buying the same product over and over again in new formats is acceptable. can't you concede that you don't need to make money on every single conceivable viewing by every person on every device?
but the number of movies and cd's released every year tells me someone somewhere is making money. now we're not arguing because you aren't making any money. we're arguing because you aren't making enough. well maybe the value of these products has been artificially inflated in the past due to the difficulty of copying but now are going to be forced to come down to more real levels. think replicator. new tech means new realities, whether or not you see that as fair. it's not in the interest of the rest of us to ascribe to what you are proposing.
That's how MacroVision came into play...will inconvenience someone
and thank god for that miracle huh? if they hadn't invented that it would have been possible to pirate movies! oh wait, the people who really wanted to copy it still did so (and resold it). but mom and dad got screwed. wonder why that left a bad taste in everyones mouth. the kind of control you are trying to exert here is impossible.
let me repeat: you will never control content in this way. no matter what you do it will get broken by those who stand the most to gain by breaking it.
3. flawless logic. somewhere someone breaks into homes and steals things. therefore no one is entitled to protection from any other laws. flawless.
4. what to do when you propose an idea (be it intellectual rights or whatever) but millions of other people disagree? it's possible your idea is unreasonable or unfair to others. since you lack the actual capacity to enforce your idea of how the world should work on others it would be in your best interest to try to find common ground and work towards that.
getting morally indignant, and creating your own new laws (by taking away the traditional rights of the millions) using DRM is not meeting in the middle. since you refuse to budge no middle ground can be reached. you lack the ability to force the rest of the world to bend to your way of thinking. so your precious "property" continues to get stolen. no amount of words, moral indignation, laws or DRM is going to change this. the longer you stomp like a toddler not getting what he wants is the longer you aren't reaping the benefits that this new economic medium could provide you.
you are spending billions of dollars to buy legislation and create DRM systems to take away MY RIGHTS and you actually have the gaw to wonder why we refuse to support you anymore with our money? you take away rights that users have enjoyed for decades now in fair use, and then wonder why people aren't just gobbling it up?
it's because you live in the same world everyone else does (despite your best efforts). a world that lives by supply and demand. the demand for your products IS elastic, regardless of what you like to think. you are not entitled to make any amount of money, you have to convince the buying public that you are.
you're attitude is to blame for your predicament. not the online community.
I agree, i'm betting this is going to be a failure just like the next gen audio discs, for the same reason. the average consumer won't get any benefit, but it will cost more.
add to that most who purchased a high-def tv already aren't going to see much advantage either thanx to that 75% reduction for non-drm'd hardware.
why? i don't buy this. no gaming system has ever done this. was the ps2 responsible for the success of dvd? no? of all the ps2 owners i know (myself included) not one uses it as their primary movie watching device.
more importantly is all of the millions of dvd users who don't own ps's, which is the majority.
i'm not at all convinced the ps3 is going to have any bearing on this outcome.
leaving aside the fact that no gaming system has ever been the deciding factor in a format war. if anything ps users are used to having their titles released in a non-standard format.
History makes me weary of blu-ray. sony has a way of shooting itself in the foot. really the big deal here is will that extra 10-gigs make much difference to the average consumer in the next year.
i'm betting not.
on the other hand, the consumer electronics world is extremely price sensitive. just like vhs i'm thinking the battle here might not be decided by the extra capacity.
to be honest i understand that in theory someday blu-ray might be able to have a lot more capacity than hd-dvd, but i don't think it's going to get the time to find that out. this war is going to be over by that time.
so again, when joe blow walks into best buy which high def system do you think he's going to buy? $1000 or $1800, all else being equal? My guess is that when this gets started most of that extra 10-gigs is going to be just that. extra, unused space.
sony has a long uphill battle ahead of it. it's not the first to market, and it's almost double the cost. history tells us either of those alone is enough to sink an entire technology.
personally i'm voting for blu-ray. as a computer user i want the format with the most capacity for all the non-movie things i do. i'm also a realist that sees the writing on the wall. i'm also not totally convinced that the ps3 is going to be an effective means of delivering us this technology. let's be honest, no gaming system has ever been the deciding factor in a technology war like this. if anything ps users are used to their systems using non-standard formats for the game, so if anything this is par for the course. not saying it can't happen, but there's no evidence to suggest it will.
did you ever hear the story of why hollywood ended up in california? to avoid the patent holder (thomas edison) of all the early movie tech at the time the studios moved out to a place where the patent holders would have a difficult time enforcing their rights.
that's right, the movie business we all know and love is founded on the exact type of disobedience that we are all so horrified by today. can you imagine the uproar if someone moved their dvd-player production plants to a place that allowed them to do what they wanted without paying the patent holders a penny, and just doing what they wanted? it'd be a blood-letting.
despite your narrow-minded view on the topic, most of human history is filled with such examples. the act of creating the united states was treason! doing things because the law says you should is a really poor reason. especially since i'm sure you selectively choose which laws you break based on some bizarre moral code you've ascribed to yourself (ever speed?).
wake up. the world isn't black and white as you try to make it sound. breaking some laws does not mean the entire world falls apart. because some laws are unjust does not mean all laws are unjust. we as citizens pass judgement on the laws around us every day, why should copyright laws get this magical free-pass from critical analyzation in your mind?
and more importantly what law has been broken? from reading the article i'm assuming this is more like a contract dispute. i don't believe there is a law requiring dvd-players enforce region coding.
i dvd shrink everything so i don't have to sit through all that beginning nonsense.
it might not even be so bad if after the warning the movie woudl just start playing. but no then it plays previews, and then i get a menu that requires me to interact with it again. just play the @#$#@@ movie. 9 out of 10 times i don't want a menu, i don't want previews, i just want the movie to start. is that so much to ask?
i swear everything that is given to the right holders at this point is used to bludgeon the customer over the head...
i think for the most part our government is both evil and stupid. not necessarily on purpose or design. but it is bound to happen when you create a huge beuracracy and give it unchecked power.
i mean seriously, the thing that annoys me most about this is it implies they have nothing better to do? these idiots can't adequately describe the nuclear capability of a hostile nation because they're too busy reclassifying previously published papers about things that happened in the korean war?
only a beauracracy can produce this kind of entertainment...
They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!
we're offended that you seem to believe your abstract sense of morality is in some way more valid than ours. i'll help you out here, look up the word "subjective".
But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
what's so tough to see?
if i go out and buy any product and then want to tear it apart and play with it, i don't morally see why i owe you anything after the sale has been complete. if i want to tear apart my radio and make a sculpture i don't see why you are morally justified in telling me that i can't. you brought something to market in a form that you hoped would maximize it's value to me while being at the lowest possible cost for you. what the value you thought you were providing (ie radio) and the value i thought i was getting (ie sculpture parts) might not be the same. but we agreed on it's monetary value for our seperate reasons.
"the rest of us" are waiting for a sensible moral reason that i shouldn't be able to take apart my radio. "the rest of us" are kind of hung up on how making a sculpture is clearly not the purpose this plastic and metal was made for (therefore violating eula), but wonder if you should really have any say in what *i* thought the value of the product was.
i understand why redistributing it is not morally justified. but that's not what we're discussing here. i'm trying to understand how you're ability to control my perception of value is your moral right.
if i wanted to take apart my radio and use it for some screws to fix say, my microwave. i'm assuming you would find that morally reprehensible if inside my radio i found a note restricting me from using the product for unauthorized purposes? these have now become "brandx radio screws"!
does it bother you that this is subjective, and therefore cannot be an absolute? or is everyone on the planet required to ascribe to your moral code?
let me ask you a question. do you doubt that this is coming? i don't. everyone at apple would have to have taken crazy pills to not think so. the course that apple has chosen is going to lead to this outcome. can you imagine a course that might not lead to this? if so, why are you defending it? if not, explain why you see this as the only course available to apple.
a) It would not be profitable for Apple to do that because they'd have to price it to make up for at least some of the revenue loss due to the lost hardware sales. The people who are too cheap to buy Macs will not buy an OS that costs as much as their cheap computer did.
yeah, i can't think of 1 company that has successfully pulled off just selling an OS! that's impossible!
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
so instead we're just going to require that ever single copy for x86 is stolen. ha! this plan is fool-proof!
i mean everyone steals windows, which is why they can't seem to make ANY money. those poor poor guys. if only microsoft had realized your business model they too could be wallowing in the luxury only someone with a 2% market segment can enjoy!
someday we won't even require investments from microsoft to stay afloat!
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X.
unlike our competitors who fight tooth and nail to grow and expand their markets, we at apple have discovered the true secret to success lies in crying like a little girl and giving up before ever trying. i mean, look at the pathetic failures of those competitors. while we were busy bickering over the chipsets for our next gen products they were busy writing software. well the last laugh is on them! cause we have intel now! and 2 button mice! what other major vendor has had the balls to tout those in the last decade as major features? huh? huh?
Hacker elite self-aggrandizing baloney. Your mild irritation at not being allowed to run OSX on whatever system you want to run does not entitle you to run roughshod over Apple's business model.
the same argument could be made for the music and movie industry. but pretending it isn't going to happen is just as silly.
this is akin to holding their hands over their ears screaming "i'm not listening, i'm not listening" as though that is somehow going to change reality. that doesn't work for toddlers, and isn't going to work for apple.
the bully says "give me your lunch money or i'm going to punch you". if you don't give him the lunch money you are going to get a bloody nose. is that fair? no. does the fact that it's not fair have ANY relevance whatsoever to the realities of the situation? nope.
1) Convince manufacturers to write drivers for OS X. If 3/4 of he hardware out there RIGHT NOW lack OS X drivers for PPC, why would they magically have OS X drivers for Intel? So that means OS X won't be able to access your scanner, your TV tuner, your sound card, your mpeg accelerated video card, etc.
eh that's just garbage. look at linux. at this point you can get most hardware drivers for intel hardware on linux despite the fact that few vendors officially support it. this would be such a hot item that the community would solve this problem nearly over-night.
if linux is any indication the open source versions might even work better than the official ones.
look at the bright side. if they released it the first several versions of this software you install and use would have cost you money. this way they'll be free:)
so now hackers will figure out how to do it and we will all get it for $0. which is a much better cost really. then perhaps years down the road we'll have to hear apple whine about how everyone is stealing their OS, when in fact they're just festering in excrement of their own creation.
*sighs*
when in history has this path ever worked out for the vendor? however i would like to thank them. if they did release an un-encombered version getting a copy of this hacked version would probably be much more difficult and take longer to get released. i can't imagine what they could do to create a situation more likely to produce this result.
Slashdot Mirror
everyone complains that there isn't enough choice. they are giving you tons of choices. if you don't want this stuff turn it off. problem fixed for 1/2 your rant.
hardware is getting more powerful, why not increase the functions the OS is capable of to take advantage of all that new harware. again if you don't want that. turn it off.
if you don't want to buy new hardware then you automatically won't be getting the new features you are complaining about anyway. seems like a win for you.
And "noobs" who do know just a little better will give themselves administrator accounts so that they can install software whenever they want without changing roles, completely mooting any "default user level access" security changes being made.
that is a choice you can make. choice choice choice. if they removed the ability to run the pc from an admin account there would be morons complaining that they couldn't do that if they wanted to. the point is YOU now have a better security system should you wish to employ it. what's not to like about that?
Why do we need virus software, I thought noobs couldn't get into the system and let viruses and worms loose...
is there an OS in existance that hasn't had some sort of virus/trojan written for it? to assume you are unassailable is folly. any system can be cracked given time and motivation. if they didnt' include this stuff, then eventually somethign would get released and you'd be whinning that there wasn't any anti-virus stuff for it.
they'll just turn them all on and go instead of actually learning the ins and outs of TCP security.
right. because linux is definitely more user friendly when it comes to managing your network. again what do you want them to do? they arguably have the best tools for this right now in xp. the only thing they can do is start taking away your access to these things to ensure security. then you'd whine that you didnt' have access to them.
they are doing their best to strike the balance between giving the user all the power they could want and preventing malicious people from abusing it. i'd like to hear your constructive views on what could be done better. it's not as easy a task comming up with constructive ideas than just flame everything that someone does. EVERYTHING has downsides.
i think my biggest pet peeve is that yet again they've changed the names on everything. it's not that the tools were really all that different, and i can deal with the new interfaces. but now i have to relearn the names for everything, when basically it fulfills the same function. i find that to be the most annoying thing about all of this. i also would like an option somewhere that turns off the wizards. they can be turned on by default, as most users will prefer them. but i know what i'm doing, give me an option that defaults everything to "just show me the guts". i understand that those screens might be different, but let's skip the whole "click next to begin" nonsense.
as for the space. are you serious? i occasionally find 8gig dvd's i archived onto the harddrive forever ago and simply forgot about. you can get drives at around 500gigs now relatively cheap. 5 gigs is nothing. i would happily trade that for a system that does a better job of managing the file system and protecting needed files from unwanted change.
it's true. and say what you will, but windows just keeps getting better. with few exceptions every release of windows has brought a better, faster, more stable operating system.
a-men. it'll let me have all these cool options and take advantage of all the cool new hardware that is being released. if you don't like it i'm sure there will be an option to turn it off. since when is choice a bad thing?
something like 80% of homes now have a dvd player? ps2's are nowhere near that. to actually influence the market they are going to have to sell more ps3's than any console has ever sold before.
not a realistic wager imo.
it's in the fiction section. my copy says "fiction" right on the cover. how much plainer can he make it? seriously? that's why we have labels like that for books.
i honestly enjoy a book more when once i start reading i get thrown into whatever reality the author is trying to create for me. i would find the book silly if it kept throwing in things letting me know this or that wasn't real. of course it's not real, it's fiction. that's a given.
you want to hold dan brown responsible because there are people that don't know what the word fiction means? maybe you're time would be better spent explaining that word to people.
many people think aliens visit us. or that the bible they read today is an unaltered translation of the original "bible". at least this book is labeled "fiction". most reasonable people know that makes it an unauthoratative source for this material.
as for it's sources, your opinions are just that, YOUR opinions. no matter what "some say", "others say" something different. if you can't deal with dissenting opinion you need to recheck your beliefs.
As for that book, I see it as an anti-catholic conspiracy theory
what i read was a somewhat boring work of fiction. again it is labeled "fiction". i see tons of books, movies, and tv shows that i could label as anti-atheist, but i don't. your belief in something doesn't preclude mine. touched by an angel was meant to be a show that entertained. i didn't care for it myself so i switched the channel and never gave it another thought.
it's FICTION. it's for people that read, you know, for fun. i didn't find jurassic park to be anti-dinosaur or anti-cloning or anti-science. it was just a story meant to entertain me. and it did that. you are taking this way too seriously...
this is 100% true. but the analogy still holds. would that change the fact that once something is created people could/would be copying it? my point is no matter how much whinning papa-johns did, people would be copying the pizza. the value is no longer in putting the physical ingredients together. there would still be a demand for new foods. but papa-johns would have to come to terms with the fact that they were no longer filling the same role. people are not going to value the bits of recipes the same they did all the work that went in to bringing the pizza to their door. you are doing less work, why should you expect to get the same amount of money?
There's no cost to breaking the law. But perhaps if it cost money to share that music with those 10,000 friends, some might revert back to "sharing" with their real friends.
the reason there is not cost is your fault. you're back at blaming everyone else for the problems but the people who caused them. this would never work because people would figure out a way to get around this as well. every attempt to artificially limit this is going to fail now. bits can be copied for free. there's nothing you can do to put that rabbit back in the hat. instead of trying to make the parts you can't control more draconian, why not concentrate on making there be an advantage to buying it?
p2p/torrent/etc is not very user-friendly, convenient, or high quality (you can get those things, but it requires lots of time spent searching around). you could compete on all those fronts. allofmp3 and iTunes proves we all prefer a well designed-intuitive interface, and are willing to pay for the content. If you would just stop giving the pirates all the competitive advantages that really matter (no drm, higher quality, any format) we would have a reason to shop with you (easier to use).
the piracy is already happening, so what do you have to lose?. today i can go online and get anything i want faster, cheaper, easier, and more convenient than i can buy it (at least legally). that is your fault. why should i agree to pay some sort of upload tax on everything i do because you can't seem to come to grips with reality? again what you are proposing is short sited and good for you, but it's not in everyone's best interest. believe it or not people upload lots of content that isn't yours.
whine and stomp and plead all you want that the replicator has now been invented. it won't change that there is no more value in putting together physical items and bringing it to my door.
Finally, do I think loaning a book or CD to a friend is fair. Yes.
by advocating drm you are clearly saying you do not. i can't lend/give my mom a copy of my iTunes mp3 or video any more. you have admitted to unilaterally taking away a right we both believe i should still have. it's in my best interest to hit up torrents and steal the content i want so i can share it with my mom. if i steal it i can get it in whatever format, whatever quality i want, for whatever devices i have that can play them. cheaper. there is absolutely no incentive to go buy it from you.
my Best Buy example
when someone steals a physical item in best buy it makes the price for everything else go up for the rest of us. it's better for all of us that the stealing stops to keep the prices lower. conversely the prices of the albums are unchanging. if anything the more popular stuff costs more to buy because more people are buying it and you respond to that. so really there is no advantage to the rest of us to stopping the piracy. it doesn't seem to affect prices one way or another (the only price drop i've seen in my lifetime came thanks to the piracy. so it is actually in our best interest to allow it.)
physical items do not equal intellectual property. any analogy that tries to claim it does is flawed. there is no replicator for real things yet. there is a replicator for content. real things carry a heavy cost of producing, the replicated things do not. why should they be treated the same?
it's not even a passable analogy. who's suggesting we shouldn't have to pay money for food? now if you invented a replicator, then you'd have people capable of making free food (nearly). what you are proposing is that could be contained which is just silly. people would start replicating food. food vendors would have to come up with new ways to compete. just selling food wouldn't be enough any more. they would have to respond to the realities of the situation, fair or not, food can be copied easily.
i'm sure papa johns and mcdonald's would go down much the same as the music industry. but they would be attempting to control something that just couldn't be controlled (like you).
that's a fair point. but compromise is not selling me a song at the same or higher price than you used to with cd's when your distribution costs have become near $0. it cannot possibly cost $.99 to bring that mp3 to market. i can get dvd's that costs hundreds of millions to make for $15-$20. sure they help off-set that with theaters, but your costs are an infintesimal in comparison to that.
you miss what people really like about allofmp3 and that's choice. you get to choose the format. you get to choose the quality. and you don't have drm restricting what you can do with it.
What middle ground?
pirating got big to start with because the labels refused to distribute their material digitally. allofmp3 and even iTunes (with it's billion plus downloads) proves people will pay for the music. they were driven to piracy because it was convenient and the way they wanted it. not because they got off stealing the music. free was just an added bonus. what i find funny is that for free people managed to build these networks and technologies. meanwhile the billion dollar industry with everything to gain did it's typical duck and cover routine (same as with vhs, casset, etc, etc...).
VHS have shown, people will not "honor" voluntary restrictions
also a good point. but then you have to ask what is enough. i understand you want to make money, but if i have a copy of a video and i want to lend it to my parents is that really that bad? with DRM that isn't even possible. sure a little "piracy" is going to occur. more importantly piracy is already occuring today and you aren't giving people any incentive to switch. you have to be a little more reasonable. i mean we have already proven we find buying the same product over and over again in new formats is acceptable. can't you concede that you don't need to make money on every single conceivable viewing by every person on every device?
but the number of movies and cd's released every year tells me someone somewhere is making money. now we're not arguing because you aren't making any money. we're arguing because you aren't making enough. well maybe the value of these products has been artificially inflated in the past due to the difficulty of copying but now are going to be forced to come down to more real levels. think replicator. new tech means new realities, whether or not you see that as fair. it's not in the interest of the rest of us to ascribe to what you are proposing.
That's how MacroVision came into play...will inconvenience someone
and thank god for that miracle huh? if they hadn't invented that it would have been possible to pirate movies! oh wait, the people who really wanted to copy it still did so (and resold it). but mom and dad got screwed. wonder why that left a bad taste in everyones mouth. the kind of control you are trying to exert here is impossible.
let me repeat: you will never control content in this way. no matter what you do it will get broken by those who stand the most to gain by breaking it.
Buy it now at the
2. no one is going to prison for stealing music.
3. flawless logic. somewhere someone breaks into homes and steals things. therefore no one is entitled to protection from any other laws. flawless.
4. what to do when you propose an idea (be it intellectual rights or whatever) but millions of other people disagree? it's possible your idea is unreasonable or unfair to others. since you lack the actual capacity to enforce your idea of how the world should work on others it would be in your best interest to try to find common ground and work towards that.
getting morally indignant, and creating your own new laws (by taking away the traditional rights of the millions) using DRM is not meeting in the middle. since you refuse to budge no middle ground can be reached. you lack the ability to force the rest of the world to bend to your way of thinking. so your precious "property" continues to get stolen. no amount of words, moral indignation, laws or DRM is going to change this. the longer you stomp like a toddler not getting what he wants is the longer you aren't reaping the benefits that this new economic medium could provide you.
you are spending billions of dollars to buy legislation and create DRM systems to take away MY RIGHTS and you actually have the gaw to wonder why we refuse to support you anymore with our money? you take away rights that users have enjoyed for decades now in fair use, and then wonder why people aren't just gobbling it up?
it's because you live in the same world everyone else does (despite your best efforts). a world that lives by supply and demand. the demand for your products IS elastic, regardless of what you like to think. you are not entitled to make any amount of money, you have to convince the buying public that you are.
you're attitude is to blame for your predicament. not the online community.
add to that most who purchased a high-def tv already aren't going to see much advantage either thanx to that 75% reduction for non-drm'd hardware.
more importantly is all of the millions of dvd users who don't own ps's, which is the majority.
i'm not at all convinced the ps3 is going to have any bearing on this outcome.
leaving aside the fact that no gaming system has ever been the deciding factor in a format war. if anything ps users are used to having their titles released in a non-standard format.
i'm betting not.
on the other hand, the consumer electronics world is extremely price sensitive. just like vhs i'm thinking the battle here might not be decided by the extra capacity.
to be honest i understand that in theory someday blu-ray might be able to have a lot more capacity than hd-dvd, but i don't think it's going to get the time to find that out. this war is going to be over by that time.
so again, when joe blow walks into best buy which high def system do you think he's going to buy? $1000 or $1800, all else being equal? My guess is that when this gets started most of that extra 10-gigs is going to be just that. extra, unused space.
sony has a long uphill battle ahead of it. it's not the first to market, and it's almost double the cost. history tells us either of those alone is enough to sink an entire technology.
personally i'm voting for blu-ray. as a computer user i want the format with the most capacity for all the non-movie things i do. i'm also a realist that sees the writing on the wall. i'm also not totally convinced that the ps3 is going to be an effective means of delivering us this technology. let's be honest, no gaming system has ever been the deciding factor in a technology war like this. if anything ps users are used to their systems using non-standard formats for the game, so if anything this is par for the course. not saying it can't happen, but there's no evidence to suggest it will.
out of curiosity what were his fatal flaws in your opinion?
that's right, the movie business we all know and love is founded on the exact type of disobedience that we are all so horrified by today. can you imagine the uproar if someone moved their dvd-player production plants to a place that allowed them to do what they wanted without paying the patent holders a penny, and just doing what they wanted? it'd be a blood-letting.
despite your narrow-minded view on the topic, most of human history is filled with such examples. the act of creating the united states was treason! doing things because the law says you should is a really poor reason. especially since i'm sure you selectively choose which laws you break based on some bizarre moral code you've ascribed to yourself (ever speed?).
wake up. the world isn't black and white as you try to make it sound. breaking some laws does not mean the entire world falls apart. because some laws are unjust does not mean all laws are unjust. we as citizens pass judgement on the laws around us every day, why should copyright laws get this magical free-pass from critical analyzation in your mind?
and more importantly what law has been broken? from reading the article i'm assuming this is more like a contract dispute. i don't believe there is a law requiring dvd-players enforce region coding.
it might not even be so bad if after the warning the movie woudl just start playing. but no then it plays previews, and then i get a menu that requires me to interact with it again. just play the @#$#@@ movie. 9 out of 10 times i don't want a menu, i don't want previews, i just want the movie to start. is that so much to ask?
i swear everything that is given to the right holders at this point is used to bludgeon the customer over the head...
which is why my fellow americans terrify me.
i think for the most part our government is both evil and stupid. not necessarily on purpose or design. but it is bound to happen when you create a huge beuracracy and give it unchecked power.
i mean seriously, the thing that annoys me most about this is it implies they have nothing better to do? these idiots can't adequately describe the nuclear capability of a hostile nation because they're too busy reclassifying previously published papers about things that happened in the korean war?
only a beauracracy can produce this kind of entertainment...
we're offended that you seem to believe your abstract sense of morality is in some way more valid than ours. i'll help you out here, look up the word "subjective".
But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
what's so tough to see?
if i go out and buy any product and then want to tear it apart and play with it, i don't morally see why i owe you anything after the sale has been complete. if i want to tear apart my radio and make a sculpture i don't see why you are morally justified in telling me that i can't. you brought something to market in a form that you hoped would maximize it's value to me while being at the lowest possible cost for you. what the value you thought you were providing (ie radio) and the value i thought i was getting (ie sculpture parts) might not be the same. but we agreed on it's monetary value for our seperate reasons.
"the rest of us" are waiting for a sensible moral reason that i shouldn't be able to take apart my radio. "the rest of us" are kind of hung up on how making a sculpture is clearly not the purpose this plastic and metal was made for (therefore violating eula), but wonder if you should really have any say in what *i* thought the value of the product was.
i understand why redistributing it is not morally justified. but that's not what we're discussing here. i'm trying to understand how you're ability to control my perception of value is your moral right.
if i wanted to take apart my radio and use it for some screws to fix say, my microwave. i'm assuming you would find that morally reprehensible if inside my radio i found a note restricting me from using the product for unauthorized purposes? these have now become "brandx radio screws"!
you better, because it's the exact same thing.
does it bother you that this is subjective, and therefore cannot be an absolute? or is everyone on the planet required to ascribe to your moral code?
let me ask you a question. do you doubt that this is coming? i don't. everyone at apple would have to have taken crazy pills to not think so. the course that apple has chosen is going to lead to this outcome. can you imagine a course that might not lead to this? if so, why are you defending it? if not, explain why you see this as the only course available to apple.
yeah, i can't think of 1 company that has successfully pulled off just selling an OS! that's impossible!
b) Even if Apple did sell it for generic PCs, many, many, many people would still download it illegally, anyway. More lost revenue.
so instead we're just going to require that ever single copy for x86 is stolen. ha! this plan is fool-proof!
i mean everyone steals windows, which is why they can't seem to make ANY money. those poor poor guys. if only microsoft had realized your business model they too could be wallowing in the luxury only someone with a 2% market segment can enjoy!
someday we won't even require investments from microsoft to stay afloat!
c) Microsoft would not stand idly by while Apple made this incursion into "their" turf, and would quickly retaliate. They'd probably discontinue Office for OS X* and lean on Dell and the other big-name PC makers to ensure they didn't ink any deals to sell PCs preloaded with OS X.
unlike our competitors who fight tooth and nail to grow and expand their markets, we at apple have discovered the true secret to success lies in crying like a little girl and giving up before ever trying. i mean, look at the pathetic failures of those competitors. while we were busy bickering over the chipsets for our next gen products they were busy writing software. well the last laugh is on them! cause we have intel now! and 2 button mice! what other major vendor has had the balls to tout those in the last decade as major features? huh? huh?
the same argument could be made for the music and movie industry. but pretending it isn't going to happen is just as silly.
this is akin to holding their hands over their ears screaming "i'm not listening, i'm not listening" as though that is somehow going to change reality. that doesn't work for toddlers, and isn't going to work for apple.
the bully says "give me your lunch money or i'm going to punch you". if you don't give him the lunch money you are going to get a bloody nose. is that fair? no. does the fact that it's not fair have ANY relevance whatsoever to the realities of the situation? nope.
eh that's just garbage. look at linux. at this point you can get most hardware drivers for intel hardware on linux despite the fact that few vendors officially support it. this would be such a hot item that the community would solve this problem nearly over-night.
if linux is any indication the open source versions might even work better than the official ones.
thank you apple!
*sighs*
when in history has this path ever worked out for the vendor? however i would like to thank them. if they did release an un-encombered version getting a copy of this hacked version would probably be much more difficult and take longer to get released. i can't imagine what they could do to create a situation more likely to produce this result.