Ah, sorry, I had you marked down wrong there...I thought you were one of the many people here who justifies downloading recent music by saying recent music is shit. Very sorry about that.
Oh yeah, and Paris Hilton deserves to be paid for her music just as any other artist does. The quality is irrelevant, if you don't like it you don't HAVE to buy it. If you want to listen to it though, you should.
You're making a very big moral judgement there, i.e. that Apple users don't break DRM, only Microsoft users do. Quickly shown as bollocks when you realise that FairPlay cracking tools have been in development and use for years now, and Fairuse4wm was released...a couple of days ago.
I love how you try and make out that Windows Media is the choice of people with low morals, that sort of bullshit always makes me laugh. Funny how there's lots of Linux users here who love P2P, isn't it?
You really don't have an understanding of how the music industry works do you?? The biggest artists on a label are extemely lucky to ever see 10% of the profit form record sales.
I'm sure they'd much rather have the reward of that 10% than fuck all.
Burning coal puts mercury in the air and that makes it so that pregnant women can't eat fish
Unless fish have gained a wonderous, magical ability to swim in the air, I would think it's more likely that it's putting mercury in the water that stops pregnant women eating fish.
Companies that cling to DRM will have no customers when confronted by reasonable competition.
As I've said in previous posts, if this was true then the iTunes Music Store would be a footnote in e-history along with Napster (the store, not the P2P app), MSN Music etc and AllofMP3 would have 100% market share.
As that hasn't happened, I'm inclined to believe that most normal people don't give a fuck whether their music's DRMed or not, so long as they can play it.
Ah, the old "el cheapo" motivation. Love it. It's so easy to run rings around.
As an aside, ever noticed how nobody really wanted to abolish copyright until they realised they could get things they'd usually have to pay for for free, but it infringed on copyright?
You seem to think such things are limited to AOL. You're very wrong. We recently cancelled our broadband service with NTL (one of the big cable companies in the UK) and we went through a similar experience.
Be fair though, this is an AOL service. It's hardly targeted at Firefox/Linux/Winamp/whatever users, it's targeted squarely at people who don't want to, for whatever reason, use something other than Windows Media Player. For those people this service will do admirably.
Most free trials of subscription services are like that. They tend to work on the basis that if you don't like the service, you'll cancel before the trial runs out. Same with magazine subscription offers.
Or you could "donate" some money by buying a CD or using iTunes/MSN Music/Napster. Then you can boycott AOL, get music, AND give the artists (and everyone else involved with making a record) money! Everyone wins!
You don't understand. To twitter, it's OK to spread FUD and general bullshit if it's done in the name of a cause that he likes (i.e. anti-DRM, pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft), and nothing more needs to be said. This is one of many reasons why twitter isn't a chosen envoy of the Linux community.
Slashdot Mirror
That's fair enough, and I personally believe in just a life copyright term, with things becoming public domain on the author's death.
you never respond to my comments.
You only give me your funny mod points...
Funny, I thought of that too...
Ah, sorry, I had you marked down wrong there...I thought you were one of the many people here who justifies downloading recent music by saying recent music is shit. Very sorry about that.
Oh yeah, and Paris Hilton deserves to be paid for her music just as any other artist does. The quality is irrelevant, if you don't like it you don't HAVE to buy it. If you want to listen to it though, you should.
So, do you use P2P to download recent music? If you do, you know that saying that makes you an asshole, don't you?
Yesyesyes, but, do any people NOT on Slashdot really give a damn?
Illegal, yes, but no more so than de-DRMing
About ten thousand times less ethical though. And no money goes to the artists.
You're making a very big moral judgement there, i.e. that Apple users don't break DRM, only Microsoft users do. Quickly shown as bollocks when you realise that FairPlay cracking tools have been in development and use for years now, and Fairuse4wm was released...a couple of days ago.
I love how you try and make out that Windows Media is the choice of people with low morals, that sort of bullshit always makes me laugh. Funny how there's lots of Linux users here who love P2P, isn't it?
You really don't have an understanding of how the music industry works do you?? The biggest artists on a label are extemely lucky to ever see 10% of the profit form record sales.
I'm sure they'd much rather have the reward of that 10% than fuck all.
Or stuff in non DRMed music shops (http://www.emusic.com)
Mainstream music, that the sort of people who would be using AOL Music Now would buy?
Thing is though, "free software" (as in open source) doesn't really mean much unless you're a programmer. Most people simply wouldn't give a shit.
Copyright is about restricting the freedom of the user of the stuff.
No, it's more about protecting the freedom and interests of whoever made a work of art, which is its intention.
Does anyone find it odd that those that redistribute music are actually doing the record label's job, for free no less?
The record label does that job because it expects a return on investment. The ROI it won't get if people don't buy it.
Burning coal puts mercury in the air and that makes it so that pregnant women can't eat fish
Unless fish have gained a wonderous, magical ability to swim in the air, I would think it's more likely that it's putting mercury in the water that stops pregnant women eating fish.
Companies that cling to DRM will have no customers when confronted by reasonable competition.
As I've said in previous posts, if this was true then the iTunes Music Store would be a footnote in e-history along with Napster (the store, not the P2P app), MSN Music etc and AllofMP3 would have 100% market share.
As that hasn't happened, I'm inclined to believe that most normal people don't give a fuck whether their music's DRMed or not, so long as they can play it.
Ah, the old "el cheapo" motivation. Love it. It's so easy to run rings around.
As an aside, ever noticed how nobody really wanted to abolish copyright until they realised they could get things they'd usually have to pay for for free, but it infringed on copyright?
It's about time music is sold from a single retailer worldwide, online.
You mean like this one?
You seem to think such things are limited to AOL. You're very wrong. We recently cancelled our broadband service with NTL (one of the big cable companies in the UK) and we went through a similar experience.
Fair point. I do however have some faith in people learning from their mistakes, and I goddamn well hope AOL has done so.
Be fair though, this is an AOL service. It's hardly targeted at Firefox/Linux/Winamp/whatever users, it's targeted squarely at people who don't want to, for whatever reason, use something other than Windows Media Player. For those people this service will do admirably.
Most free trials of subscription services are like that. They tend to work on the basis that if you don't like the service, you'll cancel before the trial runs out. Same with magazine subscription offers.
Or you could "donate" some money by buying a CD or using iTunes/MSN Music/Napster. Then you can boycott AOL, get music, AND give the artists (and everyone else involved with making a record) money! Everyone wins!
Always nice to have a bit more competition...whether the market is already saturated is another matter. Still, bravo to AOL for this.
You don't understand. To twitter, it's OK to spread FUD and general bullshit if it's done in the name of a cause that he likes (i.e. anti-DRM, pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft), and nothing more needs to be said. This is one of many reasons why twitter isn't a chosen envoy of the Linux community.