And what if you have a home-office or run a hobby site, and you need more access/control than a virtual server will allow? Dedicated hosting and co-location are still relatively expensive. I have no objection to ISPs blocking port 25 by default, and only making it available on request. I don't even mind the idea of charging a small fee for a "business account" or whatever, which gives you access to port 25 and a static IP.
However, I do object to the idea that people shouldn't be permitted to do things at their homes in in their home office, just because they aren't a "real business" with a full-on data center. The internet should be a neutral medium without inherent directionality.
Excellent point. In a similar vein I've always wondered if software-based client firewalls are a step in the wrong direction. Shouldn't these ports be closed by default? And if you do open them for a particular service, shouldn't we expect that the service would be fairly secure? I mean, sure, if you enable remote logins on your machine, leave the admin/root password blank, and go around hooking up to strange/open wireless networks, you're asking for trouble. It doesn't matter if it's in an airport or whether it's an ad-hoc network. You could be in your own home connected to your own wireless network, and if the network is open and your computer is insecure, anyone within range can have full access to your computer.
I guess it depends on who is providing "public" access. Often, the word "public" implies that it's run by some sort of government. Like public parks, public transportation. If you are, in fact, relying on the government to disseminate information (or regulate the dissemination of information), then the government is in a position to meddle with what information gets disseminated. Therefore, they are in a position to censor, possibly without giving anyone the ability to complain, since they can censor the complaints as well. It doesn't necessarily work out that way in all cases, but if you put people in a position where they can abuse the system, they usually will get around to exercising that system sooner or later.
Still, it's not clear to me that they're really worried about government-run outlets of free information, but rather they're just worried about anyone giving information for free that they could charge for instead. While it's true that non-profits could still abuse their position by censoring information that runs contrary to their agenda, it's also true that for-profit businesses are capable of doing the same thing. It seems to me that the most important thing is that we never put any single entity (or group of entities) so much trust that we cease to maintain alternative means of disseminating information.
Of course, you also have to factor fatigue into the equation. Frantically clicking the zap buttons for 20-30 minutes straight will actually wear out your hand, so while it may be possible to "beat" the game in a theoretical five hours, few individuals will be able to actually do it that quickly without stopping to rest the hands.
On the other hand, this is Slashdot, after all. A lot of people here are probably accustomed to lots of grabbing and jerking movements with their right hands while playing with a Wii of the non-Nintendo variety. I don't think they'll tire so easily.
What is going to keep X-Box and PS3 from stealing the Wii thunder?
Maybe patents? I don't really know if Nintendo has anything significant patented, but it's possible that there's something key to the Wii remote.
Either way, it'd take Sony/Microsoft a while to bring anything to market, and even then it might take some sort of firmware upgrade to make it work (not that I really know about such things). Not that it's impossible, given that all of these consoles are internet-connected computers, and can be updated. Hell, the Wii remote is a bluetooth device, so it's theoretically possible that someone could even get Nintendo's own remote to work on other consoles. Still, it will take some time for MS/Sony to devise a strategy, design/test a new controller, manufacture and release it. Nintendo can continue to make buckets of money in the mean time.
The problem is, you or your family couldn't leave the house and go to the nearest Quik-Trip and pay for that candy bar in "nine-times dollars". In contrast, American money is accepted world wide... [snip]...it's backed by the "full faith and credit" of the most powerful nation on earth, while your "currency" is backed by the resources of one/. poster.
My points exactly. Money is only "real" when it's valuable, and the only way money is valuable is if it's trusted and backed by someone with the resources to pay what you're claiming the money is worth.
If you've been in the industry for more than 10 years...[snip]
and the fact that "It Just Works"(tm).
I don't know what industry is "the industry", but you must not be in any tech-support related industry if you think Windows "Just Works". Sure, it "Mostly Works, assuming you are using very standard software and well-supported hardware, and you aren't trying to do anything very clever." Then there are the times where it "Just doesn't work, randomly, and not a living person on earth can figure out why but some MCSE will give you a line about how 'the RAM must be bad'."
If some DSL customer suddenly starts opening hundreds of outgoing SMTP connections, that would be a pretty reliable sign that his machine is pwned.
But what if the machine isn't "pwned"? Maybe the DSL customer just started a mailing list on his home server about... whatever.
This is part of what makes spam such a problem, that the Internet really needs to be a bit of a free-for-all, or else people will be prevented from doing reasonable things that they technically should be able to do. We could end spam tomorrow if we chose only to receive e-mail from trusted sources. However, that would prevent Joe Schmo from setting up his own e-mail server.
Yeah. Right. The reason people start playing Second Life is because their First Life is boring or sucks. Not because they "heard how much money they can make off it."
You must not have any friends prone to get-rich-quick schemes.
Whitewater could be thought of as an illegal pyramid scheme.
Ummm..... Whitewater was illegal. Several people were found guilty of fraud. Just because Bill Clinton was never shown to have knowledge about the illegal activities doesn't mean that there weren't illegal activities.
Also, no one is claiming that simply selling something for more than you bought it is a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is a particular model where a constant influx of new investors are necessary in order to pay off older investors because the "business" in question doesn't actually generate any wealth.
The US Dollar isn't based on anything other than trust now... What makes second life [currency] any different?
I think you answered your own question: trust. It's something that Second Life money doesn't have.
People trust US currency and will take it in exchange for goods and services. Most people do not trust Second Life money/goods/services, and will not exchange real money, goods, or services for those.
Oh, yes, I do know that you can exchange Second Life money for real money, but you can't take your Second Life money down the street to your real-life store and spend it. You can't just exchange Second Life money at airports and hotels. Essentially, if you ignore the fact that Second Life is a fake place-- that still makes its money, at most, on par with Disney dollars.
Or lets give another example: let's say I instituted new "nine-times dollars", which were hand-drawn by me, and allowed my kids to use that money to "buy" things from me. If they wanted a candy bar, that would cost 1 nine-times dollar. Let's say I even instituted an "exchange rate" within my house where 75 US cents = 1 nine-times dollar. OK, that's great. Now, is that "real money"? I'd say no.
And yes, it is largely an issue of trust, but it still results in it being impractical for private individuals to go around making up money.
Well, they kind of pretty much both work-- except where Vista doesn't work. I've tried Vista on a few computers. On some it works, and on others there aren't drivers yet for all the hardware. A lot of my software works on Vista, while some.... not so much.
You might say, "Hey, no big deal. Just get hardware and software that works on Vista!" Of course, one of the main things that keeps people on Windows is the inertia, that they already have all of this hardware and software that works with Windows. If you're going to buy a new computer with all new specific hardware and software, why not look to Apple or Linux?
Yes, it mostly works fine if you have all Vista-supported hardware and software, but even then it's a bit of an adjustment for people who are used to older versions of Windows, which is... well, everyone.
Now, this might not always be true, but to some extent: if a company inspires people to be fans of their work, if they gather massive amounts of extreme brand-loyalty, they're probably doing something right. If a company inspires hatred and distrust, there's a decent chance that they've done something wrong.
I believe Apple and Microsoft provide obvious evidence of this principle.
Yes, it does seem these days that endorsing DRM for music is tantamount to endorsing the iTMS. No other DRM scheme has been as successful, and even Microsoft doesn't want to use PlayForSure. iTunes, on the other hand, has been doing better than other online stores, and FairPlay is the only DRM that works on the dominant portable music player.
This probably is (and should be) troubling to music executives. It appears that Apple is becoming increasingly able to dictate terms to record labels. By Apple providing a single, semi-authoritative library of music, they've taken the first step toward cutting labels out of the business of distribution. Really, think about that: if there are hundreds of online stores, you still might arguably need the infrastructure, contacts, and pull to get your music on each storefront, and you'd also want the label's marketing people to know the ins-and-outs of getting prominent placement on each site. If there's one major successful site, however, getting your music placed on that one site may be a small enough undertaking for the bands to accomplish it themselves.
Essentially, labels are in the business of facilitating three tasks: production, distribution, and marketing. Technological advancements have made it easier and cheaper to have small/home studios, meaning the labels face decreasing importance in terms of production. It's possible that Apple may very well cut them out of distribution one of these days. There are people within the music industry who are starting to talk as though the major labels will, in the next 10 years, become branding/marketing companies and allow others to deal with production/distribution. However, there are still many who don't want to give up on the current business model.
That's an interesting point, especially when you consider that record labels, game companies, and movie studios are often owned by the same parent companies.
I have such a hard time thinking about the different impact of DRM across these industries. The use of these media are very different. I think that most people, really, are more interested in Netflix-type distribution for movies. Really, for movies, I want a cheap and extensive on-demand library. I want to see any movie whenever I want whenever I want to see it, but once I see it, I probably won't want to watch it again, or at least not soon. The movies I watch repeatedly are few and far between. I think that the best business model for movies might be to offer DRM-encumbered "rentals" for cheap, and DRM-free "purchases" that cost more. It would probably make both the movie industry and consumers very happy.
Plus, one of the complaint of the movie industry has been the rental market. AFAIK, studios only make money from the purchased movies, and not at all from the rentals themselves. If they went direct with a DRMed on-demand internet service, they would gain back the rental revenue for themselves.
Games, on the them, vary greatly. Some of them, I don't really want to play them again once I've won. Some games are quick and simple, with a lot of replay value (i.e. Tetris and Solitaire). Some games are really long with a lot of replay value. Like movies, I could see the possibility of publishers selling directly to consumers with a choice to rent or purchase. Actually, Steam almost seems like an alright model to me. I hate the idea of Steam, but I find it works pretty well in practice (with only a few real problems). It may also be worth noting that, for PC games, I'm used to the idea that there will be technical issues, since each game is technically different. Movies and music are basically always giving you the same sort of media in the same format, whereas games have completely different engines. Therefore, for PC games, I think I might, in fact, be more open to DRM. It's perhaps also worth mentioning consoles, which have always been proprietary, and therefore the "DRM" is pretty unobtrusive. You're used to the idea that you have to buy devices and media for a particular console, so when they're locked to that console, it doesn't seem so irrational.
Finally, there's music. I'd be least likely to want to "rent" music, and least inclined to deal with technological difficulties. Music is simple, and plays on a wide variety of devices, and I want to be able to buy a song once and play it anywhere. Also, it obviously has the most replay value. I'm most likely with music to buy a lot of it with the idea of building a "library" that I can keep for the rest of my life. People's use of music is probably more commonplace and versatile than any other medium.
So when you look at these distinctions, it seems to me that DRM might be able to play different roles within an industry, and also play different roles in different industries. Personally, I don't have a big problem with watermarking that identifies the customer who purchased the media. I think it makes sense to have some kind of "DRM" that would discourage casual piracy. For example, MP3 music stored on your iPod is hidden. It's simply hidden, with no additional DRM. For someone who knows what they're doing, it's quite easy to retrieve MP3s from an iPod, but for most people, hiding it is enough to make it "too hard". Even when there were simple ways to strip Fairplay from iTMS purchases (it's gotten a little harder since v.5), most people i know didn't bother to do it.
Really, I don't disagree with the use of DRM and watermarking to discourage casual piracy by lazy people. However, there do need to be loopholes and hacks to disable the DRM without a loss in quality, and it should be legal to use those loopholes and hacks so long as the DRM is being disabled for fair-use purposes.
I think you're right, and it's also worth noting that, in an open marketplace with no DRM, Apple's iTMS would probably still do quite well. Yes, it's true that if I had to choose between a $1.00 MP3 or a $1.00 DRMed AAC, I'd buy the MP3. But if you drop the DRM from the AAC and sold them again for the same price, AAC actually provides slightly better quality at the same bitrate, so why buy from Apple.
Plus, if you have an iPod, it's likely that you have iTunes installed on your computer anyway, and it's probably what you use to load music onto your iPod. Whatever store that program loads will have a very good chance of being what iPod owners buy from. And Apple already has traction and brand-recognition in the market. AND the iTMS is actually pretty good, easy to use, decent service, etc.
Indeed, it's not as though iPods can't play DRM-free MP3s from non-Apple sources. However, since the iTMS is very successful, I'd be surprised if record companies began allowing DRM-free distribution, but didn't allow it on iTMS. It's possible; for example, labels might intend on making DRM-free copies more expensive-- something crazy like $3 a track-- and Apple might insist on keeping their prices low.
Slashdot Mirror
And what if you have a home-office or run a hobby site, and you need more access/control than a virtual server will allow? Dedicated hosting and co-location are still relatively expensive. I have no objection to ISPs blocking port 25 by default, and only making it available on request. I don't even mind the idea of charging a small fee for a "business account" or whatever, which gives you access to port 25 and a static IP.
However, I do object to the idea that people shouldn't be permitted to do things at their homes in in their home office, just because they aren't a "real business" with a full-on data center. The internet should be a neutral medium without inherent directionality.
Excellent point. In a similar vein I've always wondered if software-based client firewalls are a step in the wrong direction. Shouldn't these ports be closed by default? And if you do open them for a particular service, shouldn't we expect that the service would be fairly secure? I mean, sure, if you enable remote logins on your machine, leave the admin/root password blank, and go around hooking up to strange/open wireless networks, you're asking for trouble. It doesn't matter if it's in an airport or whether it's an ad-hoc network. You could be in your own home connected to your own wireless network, and if the network is open and your computer is insecure, anyone within range can have full access to your computer.
I guess it depends on who is providing "public" access. Often, the word "public" implies that it's run by some sort of government. Like public parks, public transportation. If you are, in fact, relying on the government to disseminate information (or regulate the dissemination of information), then the government is in a position to meddle with what information gets disseminated. Therefore, they are in a position to censor, possibly without giving anyone the ability to complain, since they can censor the complaints as well. It doesn't necessarily work out that way in all cases, but if you put people in a position where they can abuse the system, they usually will get around to exercising that system sooner or later.
Still, it's not clear to me that they're really worried about government-run outlets of free information, but rather they're just worried about anyone giving information for free that they could charge for instead. While it's true that non-profits could still abuse their position by censoring information that runs contrary to their agenda, it's also true that for-profit businesses are capable of doing the same thing. It seems to me that the most important thing is that we never put any single entity (or group of entities) so much trust that we cease to maintain alternative means of disseminating information.
On the other hand, this is Slashdot, after all. A lot of people here are probably accustomed to lots of grabbing and jerking movements with their right hands while playing with a Wii of the non-Nintendo variety. I don't think they'll tire so easily.
In fact, Wario barely appears in Smooth Moves.
What is going to keep X-Box and PS3 from stealing the Wii thunder?
Maybe patents? I don't really know if Nintendo has anything significant patented, but it's possible that there's something key to the Wii remote.
Either way, it'd take Sony/Microsoft a while to bring anything to market, and even then it might take some sort of firmware upgrade to make it work (not that I really know about such things). Not that it's impossible, given that all of these consoles are internet-connected computers, and can be updated. Hell, the Wii remote is a bluetooth device, so it's theoretically possible that someone could even get Nintendo's own remote to work on other consoles. Still, it will take some time for MS/Sony to devise a strategy, design/test a new controller, manufacture and release it. Nintendo can continue to make buckets of money in the mean time.
My points exactly. Money is only "real" when it's valuable, and the only way money is valuable is if it's trusted and backed by someone with the resources to pay what you're claiming the money is worth.
I don't know what industry is "the industry", but you must not be in any tech-support related industry if you think Windows "Just Works". Sure, it "Mostly Works, assuming you are using very standard software and well-supported hardware, and you aren't trying to do anything very clever." Then there are the times where it "Just doesn't work, randomly, and not a living person on earth can figure out why but some MCSE will give you a line about how 'the RAM must be bad'."
Yeah, because... there are no Linux or Unix servers on the Internet. Nope. Not a single one. Unix is just so damn obscure.
If some DSL customer suddenly starts opening hundreds of outgoing SMTP connections, that would be a pretty reliable sign that his machine is pwned.
But what if the machine isn't "pwned"? Maybe the DSL customer just started a mailing list on his home server about... whatever.
This is part of what makes spam such a problem, that the Internet really needs to be a bit of a free-for-all, or else people will be prevented from doing reasonable things that they technically should be able to do. We could end spam tomorrow if we chose only to receive e-mail from trusted sources. However, that would prevent Joe Schmo from setting up his own e-mail server.
Yeah. Right. The reason people start playing Second Life is because their First Life is boring or sucks. Not because they "heard how much money they can make off it."
You must not have any friends prone to get-rich-quick schemes.
Whitewater could be thought of as an illegal pyramid scheme.
Ummm..... Whitewater was illegal. Several people were found guilty of fraud. Just because Bill Clinton was never shown to have knowledge about the illegal activities doesn't mean that there weren't illegal activities.
Also, no one is claiming that simply selling something for more than you bought it is a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is a particular model where a constant influx of new investors are necessary in order to pay off older investors because the "business" in question doesn't actually generate any wealth.
I think you answered your own question: trust. It's something that Second Life money doesn't have.
People trust US currency and will take it in exchange for goods and services. Most people do not trust Second Life money/goods/services, and will not exchange real money, goods, or services for those.
Oh, yes, I do know that you can exchange Second Life money for real money, but you can't take your Second Life money down the street to your real-life store and spend it. You can't just exchange Second Life money at airports and hotels. Essentially, if you ignore the fact that Second Life is a fake place-- that still makes its money, at most, on par with Disney dollars.
Or lets give another example: let's say I instituted new "nine-times dollars", which were hand-drawn by me, and allowed my kids to use that money to "buy" things from me. If they wanted a candy bar, that would cost 1 nine-times dollar. Let's say I even instituted an "exchange rate" within my house where 75 US cents = 1 nine-times dollar. OK, that's great. Now, is that "real money"? I'd say no.
And yes, it is largely an issue of trust, but it still results in it being impractical for private individuals to go around making up money.
Oh, right. You're one of those. Ok, fine-- all hail Ogg Vorbis, the only entirely free and perfect audio format.
ANYway... back to the issue at hand, AAC still isn't really Apple's proprietary format.
But what if I want to buy music on iTMS and play that music on my Zune?
I mean, I guess that's the complaint. It doesn't seem to awful to me, but then again I wouldn't mind if Apple dropped DRM completely.
... but other programs can play iTunes AAC files. The files that aren't DRM wrapped, at least. Don't try to make it sound like they can't.
Apple's AAC is only prevented from being read by other hardware/software is only the DRM.
Still, it's no more proprietary than MP3, and it isn't Apple's format.
Well, they kind of pretty much both work-- except where Vista doesn't work. I've tried Vista on a few computers. On some it works, and on others there aren't drivers yet for all the hardware. A lot of my software works on Vista, while some.... not so much.
You might say, "Hey, no big deal. Just get hardware and software that works on Vista!" Of course, one of the main things that keeps people on Windows is the inertia, that they already have all of this hardware and software that works with Windows. If you're going to buy a new computer with all new specific hardware and software, why not look to Apple or Linux?
Yes, it mostly works fine if you have all Vista-supported hardware and software, but even then it's a bit of an adjustment for people who are used to older versions of Windows, which is... well, everyone.
Now, this might not always be true, but to some extent: if a company inspires people to be fans of their work, if they gather massive amounts of extreme brand-loyalty, they're probably doing something right. If a company inspires hatred and distrust, there's a decent chance that they've done something wrong.
I believe Apple and Microsoft provide obvious evidence of this principle.
If anything, one would expect him to be biased against OOXML and for ODF considering that only free time has kept him from contributing to ODF.
Maybe that was their evil plan... to hire ODF supporters and give them busy work so that they couldn't contribute!
Yes, it does seem these days that endorsing DRM for music is tantamount to endorsing the iTMS. No other DRM scheme has been as successful, and even Microsoft doesn't want to use PlayForSure. iTunes, on the other hand, has been doing better than other online stores, and FairPlay is the only DRM that works on the dominant portable music player.
This probably is (and should be) troubling to music executives. It appears that Apple is becoming increasingly able to dictate terms to record labels. By Apple providing a single, semi-authoritative library of music, they've taken the first step toward cutting labels out of the business of distribution. Really, think about that: if there are hundreds of online stores, you still might arguably need the infrastructure, contacts, and pull to get your music on each storefront, and you'd also want the label's marketing people to know the ins-and-outs of getting prominent placement on each site. If there's one major successful site, however, getting your music placed on that one site may be a small enough undertaking for the bands to accomplish it themselves.
Essentially, labels are in the business of facilitating three tasks: production, distribution, and marketing. Technological advancements have made it easier and cheaper to have small/home studios, meaning the labels face decreasing importance in terms of production. It's possible that Apple may very well cut them out of distribution one of these days. There are people within the music industry who are starting to talk as though the major labels will, in the next 10 years, become branding/marketing companies and allow others to deal with production/distribution. However, there are still many who don't want to give up on the current business model.
That's an interesting point, especially when you consider that record labels, game companies, and movie studios are often owned by the same parent companies.
I have such a hard time thinking about the different impact of DRM across these industries. The use of these media are very different. I think that most people, really, are more interested in Netflix-type distribution for movies. Really, for movies, I want a cheap and extensive on-demand library. I want to see any movie whenever I want whenever I want to see it, but once I see it, I probably won't want to watch it again, or at least not soon. The movies I watch repeatedly are few and far between. I think that the best business model for movies might be to offer DRM-encumbered "rentals" for cheap, and DRM-free "purchases" that cost more. It would probably make both the movie industry and consumers very happy.
Plus, one of the complaint of the movie industry has been the rental market. AFAIK, studios only make money from the purchased movies, and not at all from the rentals themselves. If they went direct with a DRMed on-demand internet service, they would gain back the rental revenue for themselves.
Games, on the them, vary greatly. Some of them, I don't really want to play them again once I've won. Some games are quick and simple, with a lot of replay value (i.e. Tetris and Solitaire). Some games are really long with a lot of replay value. Like movies, I could see the possibility of publishers selling directly to consumers with a choice to rent or purchase. Actually, Steam almost seems like an alright model to me. I hate the idea of Steam, but I find it works pretty well in practice (with only a few real problems). It may also be worth noting that, for PC games, I'm used to the idea that there will be technical issues, since each game is technically different. Movies and music are basically always giving you the same sort of media in the same format, whereas games have completely different engines. Therefore, for PC games, I think I might, in fact, be more open to DRM. It's perhaps also worth mentioning consoles, which have always been proprietary, and therefore the "DRM" is pretty unobtrusive. You're used to the idea that you have to buy devices and media for a particular console, so when they're locked to that console, it doesn't seem so irrational.
Finally, there's music. I'd be least likely to want to "rent" music, and least inclined to deal with technological difficulties. Music is simple, and plays on a wide variety of devices, and I want to be able to buy a song once and play it anywhere. Also, it obviously has the most replay value. I'm most likely with music to buy a lot of it with the idea of building a "library" that I can keep for the rest of my life. People's use of music is probably more commonplace and versatile than any other medium.
So when you look at these distinctions, it seems to me that DRM might be able to play different roles within an industry, and also play different roles in different industries. Personally, I don't have a big problem with watermarking that identifies the customer who purchased the media. I think it makes sense to have some kind of "DRM" that would discourage casual piracy. For example, MP3 music stored on your iPod is hidden. It's simply hidden, with no additional DRM. For someone who knows what they're doing, it's quite easy to retrieve MP3s from an iPod, but for most people, hiding it is enough to make it "too hard". Even when there were simple ways to strip Fairplay from iTMS purchases (it's gotten a little harder since v.5), most people i know didn't bother to do it.
Really, I don't disagree with the use of DRM and watermarking to discourage casual piracy by lazy people. However, there do need to be loopholes and hacks to disable the DRM without a loss in quality, and it should be legal to use those loopholes and hacks so long as the DRM is being disabled for fair-use purposes.
I think you're right, and it's also worth noting that, in an open marketplace with no DRM, Apple's iTMS would probably still do quite well. Yes, it's true that if I had to choose between a $1.00 MP3 or a $1.00 DRMed AAC, I'd buy the MP3. But if you drop the DRM from the AAC and sold them again for the same price, AAC actually provides slightly better quality at the same bitrate, so why buy from Apple.
Plus, if you have an iPod, it's likely that you have iTunes installed on your computer anyway, and it's probably what you use to load music onto your iPod. Whatever store that program loads will have a very good chance of being what iPod owners buy from. And Apple already has traction and brand-recognition in the market. AND the iTMS is actually pretty good, easy to use, decent service, etc.
Indeed, it's not as though iPods can't play DRM-free MP3s from non-Apple sources. However, since the iTMS is very successful, I'd be surprised if record companies began allowing DRM-free distribution, but didn't allow it on iTMS. It's possible; for example, labels might intend on making DRM-free copies more expensive-- something crazy like $3 a track-- and Apple might insist on keeping their prices low.