Part of the problem also spawns from the fact that many channels are still analog and it would be pretty much impossible to exclude or include just some of the analog channels.
Bullshit. Australian cable companies have done this from year dot (I believe about 1997?). If they can do it (and they've only recently switched to digital) why can't America? Isn't Australia suppose to be less advanced then America?
It isn't anywhere near as difficult as you're making it sound. In Australia we get to select what we want (Although I don't we get to select individual channels, but instead individual packages, which change once every now and then without a customer-noticable change to the settop box).
Re:the most important
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.
This research will never be applied to humans. But it is a good (I assume anyway FTFA) step forward to allow the genetic alteration of depression. Depression isn't feeling depressed, but having a genetic defficiency that makes it so you have difficulty leaving a depression (and let's not get into bipolar). Someone that doesn't have this genetic defficiency still gets depressed, as does someone who takes anti-depression medication. But eventually they will leave the depression (although in extreme cases they may need a drug/more drugs to help them out of it).
Reasonable being a flat fee and then a percentage for them uploading your music to Itunes once? Guess we have different definitions of the word reasonable.
And yes, Apple is more then welcome to only deal with labels. And in a free society I am more then welcome to criticize them for doing so.
Had it been Clinton in power when the laws were pushed onto Australia (after all, remember that it was under Clinton that the DMCA became law) I would have used his name instead of Bush's. Way to make an assumption though.
So again I ask, how many non-labels is Apple dealing with? Or are they refusing to deal with anyone that isn't a label? By your answer I infer that Apple isn't dealing with anyone except labels (whether they exist outside of selling music to Apple is irrelevant). Which means that Apple isn't going to help anyone who wants to sell music outside of the record labels and their unreasonable terms. Way to go Apple for helping out the little people.
Wow, if you believe the only power America has over other countries is through force, then I have nothing to say to you. I could deny it and say America can do a lot more, but what's the point? You wouldn't believe me.
Many e-books have pages dynamically created so you can't tell what page something is on anyway unless they have the exact same version and are reading it on the exact same system.
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
Difference is neglible (and not worth mentioning) when discussing something on the internet on a forum that commonly discusses the buying of lawmakers.
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
You might not be aware but here in Australia we recently got a whole bunch of American laws passed because Bush wanted us to have them. Bush is able to affect what laws are passed in Australia, despite the fact that Australia is a democracy and not a single Australian voted for him. So yeah, it's definitely likely that the RIAA buy a law banning bittorrents in America, Bush doesn't veto it but instead coerces other democracies (such as Australia) into passing similar laws.
It's important to constantly remind of the legitemate uses becauses otherwise the RIAA will pass a law banning all torrents within America which will then be pressured onto Democracies who apparently have elected Bush to determine our laws.
Most businesses don't care about keeping their data secret from third parties they deal with as they often use Windows XP with an internet connection enabled, which gives Microsoft the ability to look through your computer and data whenever they feel like it.
I'd feel safer giving my data to Google over Microsoft. Doesn't mean I'd feel safe though.
I wish Google would code to the standard rather then standard to the browser:( They're strong enough that they could force all browsers (except possibly IE) to actually be standard compliant.
What's alarming is the prevailing sense of entitlement to someone else's work.
This might actually shock you but here goes: We actually are entitled to their work. Now hold on, what proof do I of this entitlement? Because we have something called Public Domain. The only reason the public domain exists is because we created copyright as a bone to throw to the content producers in order to keep them happy. It wasn't because they were entitled to the special laws. So yes, those kids are in fact entitled to that work. The fact that they won't be able to enjoy it freely within their lifetime is merely because the corrupt government has been bought in order to pass laws that take away the rights of the people in favour of the benefit of the few.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem also spawns from the fact that many channels are still analog and it would be pretty much impossible to exclude or include just some of the analog channels.
Bullshit. Australian cable companies have done this from year dot (I believe about 1997?). If they can do it (and they've only recently switched to digital) why can't America? Isn't Australia suppose to be less advanced then America?
It isn't anywhere near as difficult as you're making it sound. In Australia we get to select what we want (Although I don't we get to select individual channels, but instead individual packages, which change once every now and then without a customer-noticable change to the settop box).
if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.
I have a bridge to sell you.
Mad props to her
I don't recall people saying any such thing when any of the male tourists went up. So why offer her congratulations just because she's female?
Oh and as for the comments. It's called having a sense of humour. You may want to look it up in a dictionary.
No, it will go to car makers, content distributors, architects, telephone companies, the government. Unless someone burns it, it doesn't vanish.
This research will never be applied to humans. But it is a good (I assume anyway FTFA) step forward to allow the genetic alteration of depression. Depression isn't feeling depressed, but having a genetic defficiency that makes it so you have difficulty leaving a depression (and let's not get into bipolar). Someone that doesn't have this genetic defficiency still gets depressed, as does someone who takes anti-depression medication. But eventually they will leave the depression (although in extreme cases they may need a drug/more drugs to help them out of it).
I ticked that last time. So yes, I do think I get to bash Bush and the Australian government (which I do).
Aaaah. I didn't realise that missing 30% was completely into Apple's pocket. It does sound reasonable then.
Reasonable being a flat fee and then a percentage for them uploading your music to Itunes once? Guess we have different definitions of the word reasonable.
And yes, Apple is more then welcome to only deal with labels. And in a free society I am more then welcome to criticize them for doing so.
Had it been Clinton in power when the laws were pushed onto Australia (after all, remember that it was under Clinton that the DMCA became law) I would have used his name instead of Bush's. Way to make an assumption though.
So again I ask, how many non-labels is Apple dealing with? Or are they refusing to deal with anyone that isn't a label? By your answer I infer that Apple isn't dealing with anyone except labels (whether they exist outside of selling music to Apple is irrelevant). Which means that Apple isn't going to help anyone who wants to sell music outside of the record labels and their unreasonable terms. Way to go Apple for helping out the little people.
Wow, if you believe the only power America has over other countries is through force, then I have nothing to say to you. I could deny it and say America can do a lot more, but what's the point? You wouldn't believe me.
And so I ask, how many non-record labels is Apple dealing with? Or are they refusing to deal with anyone that isn't a record label?
Many e-books have pages dynamically created so you can't tell what page something is on anyway unless they have the exact same version and are reading it on the exact same system.
a) The RIAA doesn't pass laws. They may buy lawmakers, but that's not the same thing.
Difference is neglible (and not worth mentioning) when discussing something on the internet on a forum that commonly discusses the buying of lawmakers.
c) Everything after the word "America" in your sentence makes absolutely no sense and is just ranting against Bush for some reason.
You might not be aware but here in Australia we recently got a whole bunch of American laws passed because Bush wanted us to have them. Bush is able to affect what laws are passed in Australia, despite the fact that Australia is a democracy and not a single Australian voted for him. So yeah, it's definitely likely that the RIAA buy a law banning bittorrents in America, Bush doesn't veto it but instead coerces other democracies (such as Australia) into passing similar laws.
but that legitimate uses aren't enough to mean it shouldn't be.
It will help stop laws that are bought from passing through.... if we're lucky.
Of course we would. Don't confuse "why not just use the just-as-efficient existing method" over "why not just use current technology."
It's important to constantly remind of the legitemate uses becauses otherwise the RIAA will pass a law banning all torrents within America which will then be pressured onto Democracies who apparently have elected Bush to determine our laws.
Good point. Except it doesn't address what I said at all. You might want to reply to my parent post ;)
Most businesses don't care about keeping their data secret from third parties they deal with as they often use Windows XP with an internet connection enabled, which gives Microsoft the ability to look through your computer and data whenever they feel like it.
I'd feel safer giving my data to Google over Microsoft. Doesn't mean I'd feel safe though.
I wish Google would code to the standard rather then standard to the browser :( They're strong enough that they could force all browsers (except possibly IE) to actually be standard compliant.
What's alarming is the prevailing sense of entitlement to someone else's work.
This might actually shock you but here goes: We actually are entitled to their work. Now hold on, what proof do I of this entitlement? Because we have something called Public Domain. The only reason the public domain exists is because we created copyright as a bone to throw to the content producers in order to keep them happy. It wasn't because they were entitled to the special laws. So yes, those kids are in fact entitled to that work. The fact that they won't be able to enjoy it freely within their lifetime is merely because the corrupt government has been bought in order to pass laws that take away the rights of the people in favour of the benefit of the few.
But they should always watch the bigger picture (economy) aswell.
And as long as that economy is running strong, who cares who gets trodden down and exploited?
No, Apple stopped it when it was made public. If you really think Apple didn't know what was going on, I have a bridge to sell you.
Heck, even in context it doesn't make very much sense. It certainly doesn't warrant a +4 Informative.